Court Opinion

ID: 8609241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 06:41:15.07743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:19.044704
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief, the supplement thereto, and the appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed January 12, 2007, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), because the allegations lack an arguable basis either in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The complaint contains factual allegations that are so implausible as to be “fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.