United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge.
Owaiian Jones, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against several attorneys, some from the public defender's office and some privately employed. Given the nature of Jones' claims, the court construed and docketed Jones' complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After reviewing the complaint, the court concludes that the lawsuit must be summarily dismissed as frivolous.
The court must dismiss an action if the court determined that the action is "frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A "frivolous" claim is one that "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989) (interpreting "frivolous" in former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).
In support of his instant complaint, Jones alleges that the defendants "intentionally and without justification" told Jones "non-truths concerning facts and laws" in an effort to "gain and misuse" Jones' "confidences and secrets"; routinely discussed matters with two state court judges "to no benefit of" Jones; told Jones that he was "on tape stealing" even though he was "on tape walking around"; and told Jones they were on his side "but [were] not." Jones also alleges that two defendants asked Jones for sexual favors which Jones rejected.
The court's statutory authority to summarily dismiss frivolous complaints includes "the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless" or which describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Id. at 327-28. Jones' claims in this lawsuit fall squarely in this class and, ...