Bahrampour v. Secretary of Air Force, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
AFSHIN BAHRAMPOUR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF AIR FORCE;
OFFICE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH
PROTECTIONS, Department of
Health and Human Services;
DEFENSE ADVANCED
RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY,
D.A.R.P.A.; 50TH SPACE WING
PUBLIC AFFAIRS; DIGITAL
RECEIVER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; UNITED NATIONS OUTER
ORBITAL SPACE AGENCY,
U.N.O.O.S.A.; FIDELITY
INVESTMENTS; RAY
KURZWELL, Singularity
University; SINGULARITY
UNIVERSITY, NASA campus;
PATRICK SHANAHAN, Secretary
of Defense; DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION; U.S. HOUSE
COMMITTEE FOR ARMED
SERVICES; WILLIAM BARR, U.S.
Attorney General; SONNY
PURDUE, Secretary of Agriculture;
STEVE SISOLAK, Nevada
Governor; AARON D. FORD,
Nevada Attorney General; JOINT
FORCES HEADQUARTERS,
Defense Information Systems
Agency; ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION;

No. 19-1254
(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-01362-LTB-GPG)
(D. Colo.)
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

February 21, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 19-1254 Document: 010110307115 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 Page: 1

2

CHAIR OF THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION;
CHAIR OF THE CONSUMER
PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION; SKUNKWORKS;
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR SPECIAL
OPERATIONS AND
LOW−INTENSITY CONFLICT;
SPECIAL OPERATIONS POLICY
AND OVERSIGHT COUNCIL;
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE;
SECRETARY OF LABOR;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH &
HUMAN SERVICES; BEN
CARSON, Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development; SECRETARY
OF TRANSPORTATION;
SECRETARY OF ENERGY;
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION;
SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH
AND ENGINEERING; DIRECTOR
OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE;
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY; ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT,

Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

*
Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal, so
we have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the
record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Appellate Case: 19-1254 Document: 010110307115 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 Page: 2

3

_________________________________
Before MATHESON, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
In this suit, Mr. Afshin Bahrampour sued many federal agencies and
federal officers, alleging that they have secretly experimented on him with
radiation through electromagnetic spectrum weapons. The district court
dismissed the suit as frivolous. Mr. Bahrampour appeals and seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. We dismiss the appeal and deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
The district court had to screen the complaint for frivolousness
because Mr. Bahrampour is a prisoner suing government officials and was
proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
A suit is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), superseded on other
grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The claim is wholly incredible, so the
district court correctly dismissed the suit as frivolous. See McGinnis v.
Freudenthal, 426 F. App’x 625, 628 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“[The]
claims of electromagnetic torture are delusional and unsupported by any
factual basis.”); see also Clark v. United States, 74 F. App’x 561 (6th Cir.

But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Appellate Case: 19-1254 Document: 010110307115 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 Page: 3

4

2003) (unpublished) (upholding dismissal, based on frivolousness, of a
claim involving radiation experiments).
The appeal is also frivolous. On appeal, Mr. Bahrampour states that
he is incorporating excerpts from an article.
1
Mr. Bahrampour contends
that this article shows that the military is routinely conducting “‘freedom
of thought’ violations against the plaintiff as is routine practice.”
Appellant’s Memorandum in Support of Opening Br. at 3. But the article
does not provide any basis to believe that federal authorities are
conducting radiation experiments on Mr. Bahrampour.
Mr. Bahrampour also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Because the appeal is frivolous, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge

1
The article was not part of the district court or the appellate record
,
but Mr. Bahrampour also moves for judicial notice of the article. We grant
the request for judicial notice, recognizing that Mr. Bahrampour is pro se
and apparently believes that he is being targeted for radiation experiments.

Appellate Case: 19-1254 Document: 010110307115 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 Page: 4