Matthew Lecher v. Brad Borges, Brandy Madison, Lisa Coniglio, Jeremy Phinney,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MATTHEW LECHER, Plaintiff, v. OPINION and ORDER BRAD BORGES, BRANDY MADISON, LISA CONIGLIO, JEREMY PHINNEY, 26-cv-34-jdp STEVE KONITZER, MICHELLE KONITZER, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants.

Plaintiff Matthew Lecher, proceeding without counsel, alleges that he is being subjected to “persistent auditory intrusions” through the use of “voice to skull” or other technologies.

Dkt. 1, at 2. The court has allowed Lecher to proceed without prepayment of any portion of the filing fee. Dkt. 3.

The next step is for me to screen Lecher’s complaint and dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Ordinarily, I must accept a plaintiff’s allegations as true when I screen a complaint. But I must reject allegations as factually frivolous if they are “bizarre, irrational or incredible.”

Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 829 (7th Cir. 2007). Lecher’s allegations that a group of defendants are conspiring to harass him by communicating messages directly to his thoughts using technology are fantastical and thus factually frivolous. Therefore, he fails to state a claim against any defendant named in the caption.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has cautioned against dismissing an unrepresented plaintiff’s case without giving them a chance to amend the complaint. Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636 (7th Cir. 2016). But in this case, dismissal of this lawsuit is appropriate because there isn’t any reason to think that Lecher could amend his complaint to fix the problem discussed above.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. This case is DISMISSED.

2. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

Entered January 23, 2026.

BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge