WHITTED
v.
SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's civil-rights complaint alleging illegal surgeries and implantation of mind-control devices is frivolous and must be dismissed.
Plaintiff, an inmate, alleged he underwent unauthorized surgeries to implant electronic devices into his body for mind control and harassment. He soug…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B) Screening cases and more on FLexlaw
Pro se Plaintiff Daniel W. Whitted, an inmate at a county jail in Missouri, initiated this action by filing a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Mr. Whitted alleges that in August 2021, he was transported to Sarasota Memorial Hospital following a car accident on I-75. (Id. at 1). He allegedly underwent three “illegal surger[ies]" without his "knowledge or medical consent.” (Id. at 1-2). According to Mr. Whitted, the surgeries were a pretext to install “electronic devices” into his hip and foot. (Id. at 2). These devices employ "voice [to] skull technology” to “electronically harass[]” Mr. Whitted, causing "altered brain waves, psychological brainwash[ing]," and "public nudity/video voyeurism.” (Id. at 2-3). Mr. Whitted seeks to hold Sarasota Memorial Hospital responsible for this unauthorized “brain experimentation” and “neuro monitoring.” (Id.)
Having reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), [fn 1] the Court concludes that this action must be dismissed as frivolous. "A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact,” including where it “describ[es] fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F. 3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). Section 1915(e)(2) grants courts “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id.
Mr. Whitted alleges that staff members at Sarasota Memorial Hospital implanted electronic devices under his skin to control his thoughts and behavior. Courts have repeatedly held that similar allegations of illegal medical experimentation are patently frivolous. See, e.g., Hogan v. Georgia, 812 F. App'x 975, 976 (11th Cir. 2020) ("[Plaintiff's] complaint of a vast conspiracy to engage in illegal medical experimentation is patently frivolous.”); Mitchell v. Dozier, No. 6:18-cv-004, 2018 WL 3846318, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 2018) (“Plaintiff's claims that unnamed members of the security and medical staff at GSP implanted transmitters into him to monitor and manipulate his emotions, thoughts, and actions are pure fantasy.”), adopted by 2018 WL 5603638 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2018); Williams v. Karf, No. 4:10-cv-221, 2010 WL 5624650, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 20, 2010) (“Plaintiff's allegation that federal agents are somehow without his knowledge
implanting electronic devices into his 'brain and body' is factually frivolous."), adopted by 2011 WL 201770 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2011).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Whitted's civil-rights complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because any amendment "would be futile,” the Court declines to grant Mr. Whitted leave to amend. Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F. 3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment against Mr. Whitted, terminate any pending motions, and CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 3, 2024.
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: The Court construes Mr. Whitted's failure to pay the filing fee as a request to proceed in forma pauperis. A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court will have his complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the Court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).