Case Name: Alvandra J. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Emmanuel or Bill LEE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-13
Citations: 641 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 16-1250
Parties: Alvandra J. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Emmanuel or Bill LEE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 641
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
Alvandra J. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Emmanuel or Bill LEE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-1250.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Decided April 13, 2016.
Alvandra J. Allen, Chicago, IL, pro se.
Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
The defendant was not served with process in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition.
See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Opinion:
ORDER
Alvandra Allen sued "Emmanuel or Bill Lee" for abusing him shortly after his birth in 1971 by, among other things, removing his pancreas, shooting him in the head (an episode in which he says he "died and came back to life"), and replacing his soul with an evil spirit. The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it because it was frivolous and failed to state a claim. Allen, the court ruled, did not allege any federal or constitutional violations and, to the extent he tried to allege any criminal charges, he lacked standing to do so.
On appeal Allen states that his "legal argument" is "to gather everyone that was there, especially my doctor at birth," in order to hold the defendant responsible for his "violent criminal acts." Allen develops no reasoned' basis for disturbing the district court's ruling that his allegations are frivolous. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (district courts may dismiss suits describing "fantastic or delusional scenarios"). We therefore AFFIRM the district court's judgment.