Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-01254/USCOURTS-ca10-19-01254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

AFSHIN BAHRAMPOUR, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF AIR FORCE; 

OFFICE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH 

PROTECTIONS, Department of 

Health and Human Services; 

DEFENSE ADVANCED 

RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, 

D.A.R.P.A.; 50TH SPACE WING 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS; DIGITAL 

RECEIVER TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC.; UNITED NATIONS OUTER 

ORBITAL SPACE AGENCY, 

U.N.O.O.S.A.; FIDELITY 

INVESTMENTS; RAY 

KURZWELL, Singularity 

University; SINGULARITY 

UNIVERSITY, NASA campus; 

PATRICK SHANAHAN, Secretary 

of Defense; DIRECTOR OF 

NATIONAL SCIENCE 

FOUNDATION; U.S. HOUSE 

COMMITTEE FOR ARMED 

SERVICES; WILLIAM BARR, U.S. 

Attorney General; SONNY 

PURDUE, Secretary of Agriculture; 

STEVE SISOLAK, Nevada 

Governor; AARON D. FORD, 

Nevada Attorney General; JOINT 

FORCES HEADQUARTERS, 

Defense Information Systems 

Agency; ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; 

No. 19-1254 

(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-01362-LTB-GPG) 

(D. Colo.) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 21, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-1254 Document: 010110307115 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 Page: 1
2 

CHAIR OF THE NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION; 

CHAIR OF THE CONSUMER 

PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION; SKUNKWORKS; 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE FOR SPECIAL 

OPERATIONS AND 

LOW−INTENSITY CONFLICT; 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS POLICY 

AND OVERSIGHT COUNCIL; 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE; 

SECRETARY OF LABOR; 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH & 

HUMAN SERVICES; BEN 

CARSON, Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development; SECRETARY 

OF TRANSPORTATION; 

SECRETARY OF ENERGY; 

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION; 

SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS; UNDER SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH 

AND ENGINEERING; DIRECTOR 

OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE; 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY; ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE AGENCY FOR 

INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 * Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal, so 

we have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the 

record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

 This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

Appellate Case: 19-1254 Document: 010110307115 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 Page: 2
3 

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

In this suit, Mr. Afshin Bahrampour sued many federal agencies and 

federal officers, alleging that they have secretly experimented on him with 

radiation through electromagnetic spectrum weapons. The district court 

dismissed the suit as frivolous. Mr. Bahrampour appeals and seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. We dismiss the appeal and deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. 

 The district court had to screen the complaint for frivolousness 

because Mr. Bahrampour is a prisoner suing government officials and was 

proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

A suit is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), superseded on other 

grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The claim is wholly incredible, so the 

district court correctly dismissed the suit as frivolous. See McGinnis v. 

Freudenthal, 426 F. App’x 625, 628 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“[The] 

claims of electromagnetic torture are delusional and unsupported by any 

factual basis.”); see also Clark v. United States, 74 F. App’x 561 (6th Cir. 

 

But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if 

otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

Appellate Case: 19-1254 Document: 010110307115 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 Page: 3
4 

2003) (unpublished) (upholding dismissal, based on frivolousness, of a 

claim involving radiation experiments).

The appeal is also frivolous. On appeal, Mr. Bahrampour states that 

he is incorporating excerpts from an article.1

 Mr. Bahrampour contends 

that this article shows that the military is routinely conducting “‘freedom 

of thought’ violations against the plaintiff as is routine practice.” 

Appellant’s Memorandum in Support of Opening Br. at 3. But the article 

does not provide any basis to believe that federal authorities are 

conducting radiation experiments on Mr. Bahrampour. 

 Mr. Bahrampour also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Because the appeal is frivolous, we deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

 Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge 

 1

 The article was not part of the district court or the appellate record, 

but Mr. Bahrampour also moves for judicial notice of the article. We grant 

the request for judicial notice, recognizing that Mr. Bahrampour is pro se 

and apparently believes that he is being targeted for radiation experiments. 

Appellate Case: 19-1254 Document: 010110307115 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 Page: 4