Peterson v. US Department of Defense

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Denise Peterson
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-727-SM
U.S. Department of Defense
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Denise Peterson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
has sued the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”). 	Ms.
Peterson’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) is before the court for
preliminary review. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); LR 4.3(d)(2).
Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion to cease and desist
electronic targeting (Doc. No. 3).
Preliminary review standard
This court subjects complaints filed in forma pauperis to
preliminary review under LR 4.3(d)(2) and may dismiss complaints
that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seek damages from defendants who
are immune from such relief. 	See id.; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). 	The court construes pro se complaints liberally
in conducting preliminary review. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 	Disregarding any legal conclusions, the
court considers whether the factual content in the complaint and
inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, taken as true, state a
Case 1:21-cv-00727-SM Document 4 Filed 09/28/21 Page 1 of 4

2
facially plausible claim to relief. 	Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor,
723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff alleges that she and her son have been “targeted
. . . via microchip” since 2012, following a dispute over her
son’s educational placement in Massachusetts. 	She claims that
various individuals and businesses are responsible, including a
DOD contractor and a private contractor from Massachusetts that
she asserts followed her family when they moved from
Massachusetts to New Hampshire. 	She further alleges that her
family’s movements and communications have been monitored
through implanted microchips, closed circuit television, their
home wi-fi network, and/or by providers of underground
utilities. 	Plaintiff asserts she has been the target of energy
affecting her health, and that she and members of her family
have been targeted by computer programs forced upon them.
Finally, plaintiff asserts that her son has been “brainwashed”
through his computer and that her phone has been tampered with
such that she cannot receive calls regarding her son’s medical
appointments. 	Plaintiff seeks protection from further
harassment and electronic targeting.
Case 1:21-cv-00727-SM Document 4 Filed 09/28/21 Page 2 of 4

3
Discussion
One standard for dismissing claims upon preliminary review
is set forth in Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
(citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327-28 (1989)).
The assertions in the complaint in this case satisfy that
standard, as the complaint lacks “an arguable basis in law or
fact.” 	Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 	While this court has no
reason to question the intensity and sincerity of plaintiff's
concern for her and her family’s safety and security,
plaintiff’s claims of harassment, electronic targeting,
stalking, and assault do not give rise to any nonfrivolous claim
upon which relief can be granted.1 	Accordingly, the complaint
(Doc. No. 1) should be dismissed.
Motion to Cease and Desist Electronic Targeting
The motion to cease and desist electronic targeting (Doc.
No. 3) is in the nature of a motion for injunctive relief. 	In
that the complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), the motion to cease and desist electronic
targeting (Doc. No. 3) should be denied.
1 This court notes that the State of New Hampshire provides
the following link to a number of community resources in New
Hampshire: 	https://www.servicelink.nh.gov/.
Case 1:21-cv-00727-SM Document 4 Filed 09/28/21 Page 3 of 4

4
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 1) and 	deny the motion to cease
and desist (Doc. No. 3).
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
September 28, 2021
cc: 	Denise Peterson, pro se
Case 1:21-cv-00727-SM Document 4 Filed 09/28/21 Page 4 of 4