UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL CERVANKA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:22-CV-190-PLC ) U.S. GOVERNMENT, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff Michael Cervanka’s submission of a civil complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon consideration of the motion and the financial information provided therein, the Court finds that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The motion will therefore be granted. Additionally, for the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the complaint because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Legal Standard on Initial Review This Court is required to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis, and must dismiss it upon the determination that, inter alia, it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). The term “‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”

While federal courts should not dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts alleged are merely unlikely, the court can properly dismiss such an action if the allegations in the complaint are found to be “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (citing Neitzke,

). Allegations are clearly baseless if they are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.”

An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The Complaint Plaintiff prepared the complaint on a Court-provided form, as required. He named “U.S. Government” as the defendant. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 2). Invoking this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, he writes: “I’ve been given sterility drugs without my consent or knowledge and I can’t have a family anymore I can prove it.” Id. at 3. He avers this action involves the following federal officials or federal agencies: “The division of the federal Government responsible for sex crimes; a.k.a. the Calling?” Id. In setting forth his statement of claim, plaintiff writes: I’ve been under investigation for about 3 years, during which time, the investigative panel has given me sterility drugs without my consent or knowledge. I can prove this. I have pictures and videos on my phone [number omitted], as well as the actual pills in my pocket. Upon polygraph they would defin[i]tely not survive. They’ve raped my mind using a technology called L.I.D.A.R. here in St. Louis to Joplin, MO. to Florida. I’m now rendered sterile and unable to produce any offspring. They’ve managed to introduce sterility drugs into my food and drink.

Id. at 5. He seeks $750,000 in damages. Discussion Having reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court can discern no plausible claim for relief. While this Court must liberally construe pro se filings, this Court will not construct claims or assume facts that plaintiff has not alleged. See Stone v. Harry,

(8th Cir. 2004). Additionally, plaintiff’s allegations do not appear grounded in reality, and in fact “rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.” Denton,

. The Court therefore finds that plaintiff's allegations are clearly baseless as defined in Denton. The Court will therefore dismiss this action at this time as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has also filed a document requesting electronic noticing of future filings in this matter. Inasmuch as this action is being dismissed without further proceedings, there is no need to grant that request. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 17th day of February, 2022.

JOHN ise UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE