Summary
This federal district court order screens a pro se plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and finds it fails to state a claim. The court notes that the plaintiff improperly invokes federal criminal statutes lacking a private right of action and pleads conclusory allegations without identifying specific defendants, dates, or necessary elements like state action for constitutional claims. However, due to the plaintiff's pro se status, the court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend and sets a deadline of April 21, 2025, to file a corrected pleading.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint states a plausible claim under federal statutes and civil‑rights law.
- Whether the in forma pauperis application should be held in abeyance pending amendment.
Holdings
- The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim because it contains only conclusory allegations and lacks specific factual content required for plausibility.
- The IFP application is held in abeyance pending the filing of an amended complaint by April 21, 2025.
Key quotations
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Factual background
Miles Thomas alleged that Defendants used mind‑reading technology to keep him locked up, stole his money, and committed various frauds. He filed a pro se complaint invoking numerous federal criminal statutes and vague civil‑rights and unfair‑trade‑practice theories without identifying specific defendants or factual details.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint and an in forma pauperis application. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim, while holding the IFP application in abeyance.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by April 21, 2025; if none is filed, the action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.