UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________ ) CURTIS HOWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-13136-MJJ ) CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

January 23, 2024 JOUN, J. The Court finds that Plaintiff Curtis Howell (“Mr. Howell”) is unable to pay the filing fee and ALLOWS the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 2]. If a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must dismiss a complaint when the action is frivolous.

(e)(2)(B)(i). “A complaint is frivolous . . .‘if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’’” Miller v. Kennebec Cnty. Sheriff's Dept.,

(1st Cir. 1995) quoting Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (citations omitted). Here, the Complaint is premised upon Mr. Howell suffering from a “brain computer interface and brain mapping, motor-electrode mapping.” [Doc. No. 1]. While the Court does not doubt the sincerity of Howell’s belief in his claims, the Complaint, read generously, does not meet the minimal screening requirements of

(e)(2)(B)(i). See e.g., Punch v. Victoria Cnty. Jail Med. Dep't, No. 6:22-CV-00022,

, at *16 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2023); Dwyer v. United Kingdom Gen. Commun. H.Q., No. 22-CV-7171 (LTS),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2022); Scott v. F.B.I., No. 4:21-CV-01057,

, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 15, 2021). Because it is “crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile,” Chute v. Walker,

(1st Cir. 2002), this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i). The Clerk is directed to

enter a separate Order of Dismissal and CLOSE this action.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Myong J. Joun United States District Judge