Wells v. U.S. Federal Communications Commision ( 2022 )

FILED
FEB. 22, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
KANDANCE A. WELLS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-193 (UNA)
)
)
U.S. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS )
COMMISSION et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring immediate dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint is
frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
Plaintiff, a resident of Charleston, West Virginia, has sued the Federal Communications
Commission (“FCC”), Yahoo, Black Entertainment Television, and Pornhub. See Compl., Dkt. 1
at 2. “Plaintiff claims to be the victim of a massive scandalization as a result of violations of civil
rights, negligence, and discrimination based on sex, race, social status.” Id. at 4 (Statement of
Claim). Plaintiff seeks to hold the FCC “responsible for [the] alleged violations based on overt
negligence in monitoring [the] corporations” it regulates, id., and she demands
“$300,000,000,000.00,” half of which to be “allocated to witnesses, victims and those with
expressed knowledge of stated grievances.” Id. (Relief).
Plaintiff’s wide-ranging narrative, see Compl. at 6-18, mentions, among other topics,
identity theft, intellectual property theft, fair use, personal injury, and discrimination. The focus
1
of the prolix complaint, to the extent intelligible, is the FCC, however. See id. at 6 (captioned
“Kandance A. Wells versus United States Federal Communications Commission”). Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that the FCC has negligently allowed “the use of several forms of
telecommunications against [her] for the purposes and processes of intimidation, cyber tracking,
extreme sexual torment, and entrapment.” Id. Such tactics, Plaintiff alleges, “were used to silence
and/or deter [her] from coming forward in courts.” Id.Plaintiff’s complaint at best fails to provide adequate notice of a claim. See Jiggetts v.
District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Cooper v. District of
Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) (complaints that are
“rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material” and those containing
“an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated” will “patently fail”
to satisfy the minimum standard of pleading in federal court). But complaints premised on
fantastic or delusional scenarios or supported wholly by allegations lacking “an arguable basis
either in law or in fact” are subject to dismissal as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness
is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”);
Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (a court may dismiss claims that are “essentially
fictitious”-- for example, where they suggest “bizarre conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic
government manipulations of their will or mind”) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as
frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”). The
2
instant complaint satisfies this standard and suggests no hint of a cure. Therefore, this case will
be dismissed with prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/_____________
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Date: February 22, 2022 United States District Judge
3