Tobias v. White House

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ANDREW TOBIAS, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C20-340 RSM 10 v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT THE WHITE HOUSE, Defendants.

On March 2, 2020 Plaintiff Andrew Tobias filed a pro se Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. #1. The Court may deny an application to proceed IFP and may dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court has reviewed the Complaint submitted and, construing all allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and giving due deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, concludes the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court accordingly DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice for the reasons below.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant White House is engaged in psychic spying on Plaintiff’s thoughts and making psychic attacks on Plaintiff, including psychic murder. See Dkts.

2 #1-1 at 6, #1-3 at 1-7. Plaintiff has made similar allegations in at least three other complaints filed in this court. Tobias v. Federal Government, 19-2017-JLR (Dismissed December 13, 2019); Tobias v. Federal Government 19-2095-RSM (Dismissed January 24, 2020); and Tobias v. Whitehouse, 19-2096-JCC (Dismissed March 2, 2019).

6 As noted above, the Court may dismiss any complaint that is frivolous. A case is frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” Neitzke, 490 U.S., at 327 or “fanciful,” id. at 325, “fantastic,” id., at 328, or “delusional.” Id. The Supreme Court notes that as these words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible—regardless of whether there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant is making psychic attacks on him is wholly incredible. Furthermore, this Court has previously dismissed at least three other complaints containing similar allegations. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 15 (1) The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

16 (2) The application to proceed in forma pauperis is stricken as moot.

17 (3) The Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of this Order.

DATED this 5th day of March 2020.

A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 21 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE