UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x DENNIS ALFORD,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 24-CV-6695(EK)

- against -

FBI, CHRISTOPHER WRAY, NYPD, SEAVIEW TOWERS, LEFRAK CITY, SAINTS JOHNS EPISCOPLE HOSPITAL, LONG ISLAND JEWISH HOSPITAL, JAMAICA HOSPITAL,

Defendants. ------------------------------------x ERIC R. KOMITEE, United States District Judge: On August 23, 2024, Dennis Alford filed this action, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. By Order dated September 10, 2024, the action was transferred to this Court from the Southern District of New York. The Court grants Alford’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons that follow, the pro se complaint is dismissed with prejudice. I. Background Alford claims violations of his “human rights, civil rights, [and the] Due Process Clauses,” which the Court construes as alleging a claim under

. See ECF No. 1 at 1-7. In Alford’s form complaint, he alleges no any facts. However, Alford attached over seventy pages of documents that he previously submitted in other venues. All concern the same allegation: the police and FBI are attacking him with radiation. Alford requests no specific relief. See ECF No. 1 at

6. In an April 2024 Queens County Supreme Court action, he “request[ed] that the radiation torture cease and desist immediately . . . both apartment complexes shall award financial compensation in the amount of $750,000,000.00.”

. II. Legal Standard A district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B). If a liberal reading of the complaint “gives any indication that a

valid claim might be stated,” the Court must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu,

(2d Cir. 2000). However, claims are frivolous when they lack “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989).1 “A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible whether or not

1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal quotation marks. there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id. at 25. III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s allegations can only be described as frivolous and “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). In Kraft v. City of New York, the Second Circuit held that “the district court did not err in sua sponte dismissing the complaint as frivolous,” based on the plaintiff’s assertions that he had “been the subject of 24-hour, multi- jurisdictional surveillance by federal ‘fusion centers’ and the New York State Intelligence Center, which put a ‘digital marker’ on him in order to collect his personal data and harass him.”

, 64 (2d Cir. 2020); see also Khalil v. United States, No. 17-CV-2652,

, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2018) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff alleged a conspiracy

“involving surveillance of and interference with his life” by government actors because his allegations were “irrational and wholly incredible”). Thus, the action cannot proceed. IV. Leave to Amend The Second Circuit has held that “a pro se complaint generally should not be dismissed without granting the plaintiff leave to amend at least once . . .” Grullon v. City of New Haven,

(2d Cir. 2013. “[B]ut amendment should be denied where the complaint gives no indication that a valid claim might be stated.” McKie v. Kornegay, No. 21-1943,

, at *3 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2022). The Court concludes that granting leave to amend would be futile. The complaint

does not suggest any basis for a valid claim. V. Conclusion Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this action and mail a copy of this Order to Alford. The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962).

SO ORDERED. _______________________ ERIC R. KOMITEE United States District Judge

Dated: March 28, 2025 Brooklyn, New York