1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PAULMICHEAL LEE KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

NO. C06-0389P

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Paulmicheal Lee King, proceeding in forma pauperis, has filed a complaint and

supplementary materials alleging violations of his civil liberties. (Dkt. No. 3). Having received and

reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and all attached supplementary materials, the Court concludes that the

complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a case at any time if the court

determines that the action: (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

In this case, Plaintiff names the United States of America as the defendant. Plaintiff states that

he has filed this case “against The United States for the violation to my Civil Liberties, around The

illegal use of Wire Tapping from The NSA and the illegal use of Telemedicine/Cybornetic’s.” Plaintiff

seeks monetary relief in the amount of one billion dollars. 

Case 2:06-cv-00389-MJP Document 5 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2

Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the Court construes his pleadings liberally. McGuckin v.

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992). Although Plaintiff does not indicate the law under which

his claim is brought, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to maintain an action for damages due to

deprivation of federal constitutional rights, which is also known as a “Bivens” action. See Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

A Bivens action cannot be brought against the United States or its officers in their official

capacity. Vaccaro v. Dobre, 81 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 1996). Instead, Bivens actions can be

maintained only against federal agents in their individual capacities. Id. As a result, Plaintiff’s claim

for monetary damages against the United States for alleged violations of his civil liberties is subject to

dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which this Court

may grant relief.

In addition, the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity from suit in actions

seeking monetary damages for constitutional violations. See Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202,

1207 (9th Cir. 1988). Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is also subject to dismissal pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), which requires dismissal of cases seeking monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief.

It also appears from the materials attached to Plaintiff’s complaint that he is alleging that he

has been a victim of “mind torture via satellite technology” operated by the United States. A

complaint may be subject to dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if the

allegations “rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,

33 (1992). Although the Court does not doubt that Plaintiff’s beliefs are sincere, these allegations rise

to the level of the wholly incredible and the complaint is therefore subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

Because it does not appear that the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint may be cured by the

allegation of additional facts, the Court dismisses this action without leave to amend.

Case 2:06-cv-00389-MJP Document 5 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 3

The clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff.

Dated: May 18, 2006

.

s/Marsha J. Pechman 

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00389-MJP Document 5 Filed 05/18/06 Page 3 of 3