Hanson v. Dowling

Background

Christina Hanson, who represented herself, sued the United States and others. The complaint identified Charles Dowling as a federal law-enforcement agent who worked for the “NSA” or possibly the FBI in its Oakland field office. Hanson alleged that Dowling said she was an informant when she was not and implanted a “Stargate Remote Viewing Device” in her right eye. She also submitted material describing her views, fears, symptoms, and medical diagnoses.

The court had already granted Hanson permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Before ordering the United States Marshal to serve the defendants, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Legal standard

Under that statute, the court must dismiss a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint must provide enough factual matter to make a claim plausible, although courts must read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally.

Analysis and ruling

The court held that Hanson’s allegations did not plead a plausible claim. The court nevertheless noted that Hanson had identified a specific federal agent, which suggested that something had happened. It gave her an opportunity to describe more fully the nature of her interactions with Dowling and exactly what happened to her.

The court ordered that Hanson could file an amended complaint by April 11, 2022. The order also stated that she could file a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal, which would operate as a dismissal without prejudice and allow her to pursue her claims later. If she did not file an amended complaint by April 11, the case would be reassigned to a district judge, who would be asked to dismiss the case. The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order.