# (~ Mark Hall, Plaintiff,


### v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil ActionNo. Robert Mueller, Director, F.B.I. 

### etaI., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED APR 

## 202009 NANCYMAYER WHITTING U.S. DISTRICT

### CO~?#' CLERK

This matter comes before the Court on consideration ofapro se complaint and an application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the individual's application and dismiss the complaint as frivolous and failing to state a claim upon whichreliefmay be granted. Asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. 

### § 1983, the plaintiffsues the Director ofthe F.B.I. and "unknown government agents" inboththeir official and individual capacities. CompI. (caption). The gravamen ofhis complaint is that he has learned how to cause massive destruction using the anthrax virus and that he tried multiple times to warn government officials, and specifically the Director ofthe F.B.1. ofthe threat ofan anthrax disaster. 

### Id. at 1. Although plaintiffhas sent

more than 50 letters, the agents have disregarded his warnings. 

### Id. He further states: The Director ofthe F.B.I. and unknown agents who have received my numerous letters to six government agencies have acted with total disregard ofhuman life, their oath ofoffice or are engaged in a conspiracy to cause or facilitate a terrorist act tojustifytheir war onterror. You cannot stop me from arming any terrorist organization with info on WMDs ifI wanted them to have it; not that I do. Yet you have prevented me from stopping an attack. 

### Id. (puncutation and spelling corrected). Concluding that the defendants' unresponsiveness to his letters has increased the danger ofa terrorist attack, he alleges a conspiracy to do exactlythat,and also asserts that the defendants' conduct "has caused [him] to possibly violate hundreds of federal laws in an attempt to prevent a terrorist attack." 

### Id. at 2 (spelling corrected). The complaint seeks unspecified injunctive relief. 

### Id. ("I want an injunction prohibitingthe defendants' illegal behavior.") To state a claim under 

### § 1983, a complaint must allege facts sufficientto support a reasonable inference that (1) a person (2) acting under color ofstate, territorial, or District of Columbia law (3) subjectedthe plaintiffor caused the plaintiffto be subjected (4) to the deprivation ofaright secured by the Constitution or laws ofthe United States. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 829 (1985). Here, there is no allegation, andthere cannotbe any reasonable allegation, that DirectorMueller or the unknown federal agents were acting under color ofstate law. Moreover, the complaint does not indicate which, ifany, ofthe rights plaintiff has underthe Constitution orthe laws ofthe United States have been violated by the defendants' actions. As such, the complaint is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted. In addition, this complaintpresents the sort of "fantastic and delusional scenario" that warrants immediate dismissal as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Accordingly, the complaint will also be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.c. 

### § 1915A(b)(1). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.