Th e d efend an ts-ap p ell ees w ere not serv ed w ith p rocess i n th e d istri ct cou rt and are * not parti ci pati ng i n thi s a pp eal
. Afte r exam i ni ng the br i ef s a nd the re cor d, w e hav e con clud ed that oralargum en t is un ne cess ary. Th us , the ap p eal i s su bm itted on th e brief s an d th e re c or d
. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)( 2). 

# United States Court of App eals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Febr uary3, 20 10 * Deci ded February4, 20 10

B efo re K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 2617 A L O N JE K . W A L T O N , SR .,

P la intif f-A pp ella nt,

v. R O G E RE . W A L K E R, JR., etal.

D efend a nts-A pp ellees
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s . N o. 08
- cv- 486 M i ch ae lJ . Re ag an, Judg e . O R D E R A l onj e W al ton fi l ed sui t under 42 U . S. C. § 1 983 al l eging a bro ad conspi ra cy to vi ol ate hi s ci vi lr i ghts. The di str i ct c ourtscr eened the co m pla i nt under 2 8 U.S . C. § 1 915A a n d d i s mi s s e d i ta s fr i v o l o u s . We a ffi r m. NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 2617 Page 2

I n a s prawli ng, 82
- page c om pla i nt nam i ng 24 defendants, W al ton al l ege d that C h ica go p olic e o ffice rs co llu d ed w ith p ro se c u to rs to fals ely arr es t a n d co n vic t h im in r et al i at i o n fo rfi l i nga pr ev i o us c i vi l
- r i g ht s su i t ag ains t pr i so n o ffi ci al s. On ce i n pr i so n, he furtheral l ege d, a va ri etyo fpri son offi ci al s— fro m the sta te Dir ecto r ofthe Dep ar tm ent o f C or re c tio n s d ow n to ind ivid u al p ris on gu ar d s— en ga ge d in a br oa d co n sp ira c y t o kill h im orenco urag e o therpri sone rs to ki l lhi m . Accordi ng to W al ton, the conspi ra cy continued des pi te hi s tr an sfert o a no th erpr i so n. He al so a l l eg ed o th erc o ns pi r at o r i alwro ng do i ng re gar ding f al se disc i plinarychar ges , i nter fer ence w i th hi s m ai l, l ack ofacc ess to l ega l m at er ials , an d arb itr ar y h an d lin g of h is gr iev an c es an d d isc ip lin ar y h ea rin gs . W a l t o n’ s r e qu e s tt o p r o c e e d in fo rm a pa up eris w as d en ied by th e d ist ric t c ou rt . See 28 U . S. C. § 1 915( g) . The c ourtnot ed that W al ton had accum ula ted thr ee “st ri kes ” for previ ous s uit s that were ei therco m ple tel y o r parti al l y di sm i sse d and that W al ton did not fac e a n y im m in en t t h re at of p h ys ica l ha rm . (D es p ite th e d ea th th re at s h e a lleg ed in h is com p lai nt, W alton h ad nev er been attac ked du ring the 20 m ont hs of th e con sp iracy’s p u rp or te d ex ist en c e.) The dis tr i ct c ourtl ate r dism i sse d the co m pla i nt atscr eeni ng, § 1915 A , bec ause W al ton’ s a l l ega ti ons defi ed re al i ty. The c ourtco m pared W al ton’ s co m pla i nt to hi s l ast sui t— w hi ch w as dism i sse d as “ a par anoi d str eam o fco nsci ousness ”— and concl ud ed that i n thi s ca se, “the she ersi ze ofthe al l ege d conspi ra cy— i nvol vi ng num er ous a genci es ofst ate an d l ocal govern m en t— p oints in the direction of pa ran oid fanta sy.” B ecau se W alton’s al l eg at i o ns di d no t m ee t th e th r es ho l d o fpl au sibi l i ty, the c o ur t di smi ss ed th e co m pl aint w i th prej ud i ce. On app eal, W al ton ar gues that dism i ssa lunder § 1915 A was i napp ro pri ate bec ause th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti mpr o p e r l y r ej e c t e d h i s a l l e g a t i o n s a s f a n t a s t i c . T h e c o u r t, i n h i s v i e w, er re d by no t co nstruinghi s a l l ega ti ons ofco nspir acy i n a m or e f avo rabl e l i ght. Un d e rF e d e r a lR u l e o fC i v i lP r o c e d u r e 8 , a c o mpl a i n tmu s ta l l e g e f a c t s th a ta l l o w a cour t “ to draw the re aso nabl e infe re nce that the defendant i s l i abl e forthe m i sco nd uct al l ege d.” Ash crof

tv. Iq b al , 129 S. C t. 19 37, 194 9 (2 00 9); see also C o o ney v. R o ssiter, 58 3 F . 3d 967, 97 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) (be f o r e su bj ec tingde fen dan ts t o “ par an o i d pr o s e l i ti g at i o n . . . a l l eg i ng

. . . a vast, enco m passi ng co nspir acy, ” the pl ai nti ffm ust m eeta “hi gh st andard of pla usibi l i ty” ) . A com pla i nt co nsi sting o fnothi ng m or e than “‘ naked as ser ti on[ s] ’ devoi d of
‘ furtherf actualenhancem ent, ’ ” m ust be di sm i sse d fo r f ai l i ng to m eetthe re quir em ents of R u le 8
. Iq b al , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 49 ( quoti ng B el l Atl. Co rp. v. Tw om bly, 550 U .S. 54 4, 55 7 (2 00 7)). W hen m aking the deter m i nati on o fpl ausibi l i ty, a cour t m ay re l y upon j ud i ci alexper i ence an d co m m on se n se . Id. at19 50. W e r evi ew de nov o the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lunderN o. 09
- 2617 Page 3

§ 1 91 5A for fa ilin g t o s ta te a c laim
. Rodr iguez v. Ply m outh Am b ul anc eSe r v. , 57 7 F . 3d 816, 82 0 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ). W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthatW al ton’ s a l l ega ti ons ar e no t ba cked by su ffici en t factu al deve lopm en t to m ake th em plau sible en ou gh to state a claim
. W alton’s com pla i nt— and the 18 4 page s o fexhibi ts that acco m pany i t— conta i n nothi ng m or e than uns uppo r te d a l l eg at i o ns tha t a wi de va r i ety o fs ta te a nd l o ca lo ffi ci al s o ve rmany months co ns pi r ed to v i o l at e hi s r i g ht s. Wal to n’ s co m pl ainto nl y make s “[ t] hr ea dba r e r ec i ta l s o fthe el em ents ofa cause ofact i on, supporte d by m er e co ncl usor y s tat em ents, ” Iq b al , 12 9 S . Ct. at 1949 , and thes e a re j ust the so rto f“nak ed ass er ti ons” that the S up re m e Cour t has c ou n se led are n otsu fficie n t t o a vo id d ism iss al, see B roo ks v. R o ss , 578 F.3d 574 , 581 (7th C ir. 2009 ). M oreover, the d istri ct cou rt w as en titl ed to draw up on its fam il iari ty w ith W alton’s p rior m er itle ss litiga tio n (ag ain d es c rib in g s p ra w lin g c on sp ira c ies ) to co n c lu d e t h at h is c o mp l a i n tc o n s i s t e d o n l y o f“ c l a i ms d e s c r ib i n gf a n t a s t i c o rd e l u s i o n a ls c e n a r i o s , c l a i ms w i th wh i ch federa ldi str i ct j ud ges ar e a l lto o f am i l i ar . ” Ne i tz k ev . Wi l l i a ms , 49 0 U.S . 31 9, 32 8 (1989). W alton also cha ll en ges th e d istri ct cou rt’s den ialof in fo rm a pa up eris sta tus be cause he had accum ula ted thr ee str i kes
. He cl ai m s that the di sm i ssa lo fse ver alpart i es fro m an ear l i erl aw sui t forf ai l i ng to st ate a cl ai m sho uld nothave bee n consi dered a “st ri ke” because the enti re act i on was notdi sm i sse d. A l ternati vel y, he a rgues that hi s a l l ega ti ons of rep eated de ath threat s d em ons trate th at he feared i m m inen t harm
. Bu t beca us e W alton’s c o mp l a i n tw a s fr i v o l o u s , th e r e w a s n o e r r o ri n d e n y i n gh i m in fo rm a pa up eris st at u s. See 28 U .S.C . § 19 15 (e)(2 ); se e also Gladney v. P endle ton Co rr . Facil ity, 30 2 F . 3d 773, 775 ( 7th Cir . 20 02) ( concl ud i ng tha t fri vol ous s uit s m ust be di sm i sse d und erei ther§ 1915 A o r § 1915 (g)) . AF F I RMED.