### Cynthia Mewborn, Plaintiff,
v. 

### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil ActionNo. United States Environmental Protection Agency 

### etal., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED JUL 3 12012 Clerk, U.S. Dist!ict. & Bankruptcy Courts for the D1stnct of Columbia 

# 12 1261

This matter is before the Court on review ofplaintiff'spro se 

### complaint and application to proceed informapauperis. 

### The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 

### 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal ofa complaint upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted or is frivolous). Plaintiffis a District ofColumbiaresident suing the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), the United States Coast Guard, and BP oil company for property damage and personal injury. Compl. at 2. Plaintiffalleges that defendants promised to use her "ideas for stopping the oil leak offofthe Coast ofMexico in 2010
....," id., 

### but apparently reneged. Plaintiffalso alleges that defendants in fact stole her "Dome Cap" idea and used it. 

### !d. She seeks a total of$400 million in damages. Plaintiffdoes not allege that her ideas are patented, trademarked or otherwise registered for protection. Nor is there any indication in the complaint's allegations and attachments that plaintiffand defendants established a legal relationship ofany kind. To the contrary, plaintiff 

# 3attaches a letter from EPA that, among other things, thanks her for her submission and informs her that "[s]ince the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, the federal government has received
more than 20,000 suggestions and technology solutions from vendors and other members ofthe public in the United States and abroad. The EPA alone has received more than 2,000 suggestions each ofwhich were reviewed in an orderly and expeditious manner." Compl. Attach. Given the nature ofplaintiffs suggestions, EPA informed herthat it was forwarding her submission to the Coast Guard. /d. Plaintiffalso attaches an email message purportedly from Lara Autry whom plaintiffalleges told her in a telephone conversation "that [EPA] not only wanted to use one of my idea[s]
... Ihad submitted in stopping the [oil] leak[,] butthat they wanted all ofmy ideas and that three ofmy ideas were being implemented [b]y [the Coast Guard]." Compl. at 1. Autry's email, however, makes no such representations and, like the EPA's letter, is a letter generally thanking plaintifffor her "continued thoughts and ideas to help with such an unfortunate disaster." Compl. Attach. Not only does the complaint fail to state a cognizable claim but it also presents the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). "A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion ofsupporting facts, orpostulating events and circumstances ofa wholly fanciful kind." Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Since the instant complaint qualifies for such treatment, it will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

## \f\..- Date: July

# 1fl__, 2012
2