IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CHADWICK LYNN MILLER, ) CASE NO. 1:19 CV 1526 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) Vv. ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, ) ) Defendant. )

Pro se Plaintiff Chadwick Lynn Miller filed the above-captioned action against Fidelity Investments. In the Complaint, he alleges terrorists installed thought reading transmission technology on him against his will. He alleges the Defendants did not install the technology but aided the terrorists by using mind altering tactics against him that include impersonating people from his past, “gas lighting till [his] head actually broke open and had sores,” and deliberately lying to him. He seeks $900,000,000.00 in damages. Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis. That Application is granted Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall,

(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner,

(1972), the district court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under

(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989); Lawler v. Marshall,

(6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville,

(6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Igbal,

(2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly,

. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Igbal,

. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard.

In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,

(6th Cir. 1998). The Court, however, is given discretion to refuse to accept without question the truth of Plaintiff's allegations when they may be fairly described as fanciful, fantastic, delusional, wholly incredible, or irrational. Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). The case at bar undoubtedly presents just such

a Complaint. It does not contain a plausible statement of fact or a decipherable legal claim.

-2-

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Application to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to

(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.’ IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Asgust 10 15

'

(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. -3-