IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

DE’AMONTAE MANNING, CASE NO. 3:24 CV 1170

Plaintiff,

v. JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II

JAMES ELLIS, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND Defendant. ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff De’Amontae Manning brings this action under

against Toledo Correctional Institution Corrections Officer James Ellis. See Doc. 1. In the Complaint, he contends Ellis used a microchip implanted in his body to control his body movements, internal organ functions, and thoughts. See

He claims this is cruel and unusual punishment.

. He seeks monetary damages.

. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall,

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

(1972), the 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 th[e] 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. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 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.” Iqbal,

. 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 generally 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 the plaintiff’s allegations when they are “clearly baseless,” a term encompassing claims that 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.

This action lacks an arguable basis in fact. For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is ORDERED that this action be, and the same hereby is, dismissed pursuant to

(e); and the Court FURTHER CERTIFIES, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

s/ James R. Knepp II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 18, 2024