Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00066/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER HARRISON, #215 201, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-66-WKW 

 ) (WO) 

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) 

CORRECTIONS, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the St. Clair Correctional Facility in Springville, 

Alabama, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Alabama Department of Corrections, the 

Bullock Correctional Facility, Warden Jones, Dr. Kurn, Dr. Groat, and Warden Mason.1

 He 

alleges that he has a computerized radio transmitter in his abdomen which was disguised in 

something he ate. In filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief in the form 

of an immediate trip to the infirmary for an x-ray. Doc. No. 7 at 3. The court has carefully 

reviewed the allegations in the instant complaint. From that review the court concludes that 

dismissal of this case prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

I. DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff alleges a claim for medical malpractice and violations of his Fourth and Eighth 

Amendment rights. According to the amended complaint, after arriving at the Bullock 

Correctional Facility on December 31, 2014, Plaintiff informed Drs. Groat and Kurn he had a 

                                                            

1 Plaintiff originally filed the instant complaint on January 12, 2015. By order entered January 15, 2015, 

the United States District Court transferred the complaint to this court. See Doc. No. 2. Plaintiff filed an 

amendment to the complaint on February 4, 2015. See Doc. No. 6. On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

an amended complaint. See Doc. No. 7. This matter is proceeding on the February 11 amended 

complaint. 

Case 2:15-cv-00066-WKW-CSC Document 10 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 4
computerized transmitter in his abdomen which had been disguised in something he ate while on 

the segregation unit at the St. Clair Correctional Facility. Plaintiff also informed Drs. Kurn and 

Groat how the device operated and was programmed with a voice “24/7 assisting [him] to kill 

[himself].” The transmitter, Plaintiff claims, operates like a tracking device which causes him 

physical, psychological, and mental trauma. He states he submitted sick call requests and 

medical grievances regarding sharp pains/vibrations which radiate throughout his body and about 

peculiar noises in his stomach. A medical x-ray, Plaintiff asserts, will “aver” his claims. Doc. 

No. 7 at 3-4. 

 When a prisoner is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in a suit against an officer or 

employee of a governmental entity under 42 U.S. C. § 1983, the court must conduct an initial 

evaluation of the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening 

procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process if it 

determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 

 This court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint “if the court determines that . . . 

the action . . . is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see also Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or 

fact. Id.; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). The provisions of §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) 

give a federal district court “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual 

allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. Examples of such claims are those that describe “fantastic or delusional 

scenarios.” Id. at 328. 

Case 2:15-cv-00066-WKW-CSC Document 10 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 4
 After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s allegations, the court concludes that the facts he 

alleges present a fantastic and delusional scenario. The allegations made by Plaintiff present no 

logical set of facts to support any claim for relief. Rather, the claims presented by Plaintiff are 

the types of claims which should be subject to dismissal because they rise to the level of the 

irrational and reflect the thoughts of a paranoid and/or delusional individual. In light of the 

foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

II. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s 

complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before March 5, 2015, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate 

Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections 

will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a 

final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

 Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

issues covered in the report and shall bar a party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the 

report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest 

injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, 

Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th 

Case 2:15-cv-00066-WKW-CSC Document 10 Filed 02/19/15 Page 3 of 4
Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth 

Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.  

Done this the 19th day of February, 2015. 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00066-WKW-CSC Document 10 Filed 02/19/15 Page 4 of 4