Velasquez v. Curry

Background

Daniel Velasquez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Crystal Curry and Mark Luna. The opinion states that Velasquez alleged Curry and Luna were informants or possible law-enforcement officers in Houston, Texas. He said the events occurred at the Bellevue Men’s Shelter in Manhattan and at a shelter in Brooklyn.

Velasquez alleged that an artificial-intelligence microchip had been implanted in him through food, drink, or sexual intercourse, and that the chip was being used for surveillance. He also alleged that his phone and cloud accounts had been accessed by defendants without warrants. He sought warrants and information about the defendants’ identities and professional status, as well as medical screening and an MRI.

Court’s analysis

Because Velasquez had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to review his complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court explained that a claim is factually frivolous when its allegations are irrational or wholly incredible. It found that Velasquez offered no factual basis for his belief that he had been implanted with a microchip or targeted by a secret surveillance program. The court stated that beliefs, even strongly held ones, are not facts and concluded that the complaint consisted of conclusory claims and suspicions that were not plausible.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It also declined to grant Velasquez leave to amend, finding that the defects could not be cured through an amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.