Stacy Allen Taylor v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
STACY ALLEN TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________
2014-5110
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00393-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Stacy Allen Taylor, an incarcerated pro se litigant,
challenges the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous
under 19 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) by the United States
Court of Federal Claims. Because we agree that the
complaint was frivolous, we grant the government’s
motion to summarily affirm.
Case: 14-5110 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2014

-- 1 of 3 --

TAYLOR v. US 2
Taylor’s complaint alleges that he entered into an
agreement with the Central Intelligence Agency to assist
its agents in collecting various information and assets in
exchange for witness protection and full immunity. His
complaint requests that the court direct the government
to turn over evidence showing corruption and wrongdoing
by the CIA and honor the agreement’s obligations to pay
Taylor a recurring monthly salary. After granting Taylor
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the United States
Court of Federal Claims screened the suit and dismissed
the complaint.
A district court is required to dismiss a frivolous
complaint from a litigant who is proceeding in forma
pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Frivolous complaints
include those in which the factual allegations asserted are
so unbelievable that there is no need for an evidentiary
hearing to determine their veracity. See Neitzke v. Wil-
liams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (frivolous claims include
those that describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios”);
Gladney v. Pendleton Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773,
774 (7th Cir. 2002); cf. Galloway Farms, Inc. v. United
States, 834 F.2d 998, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (A frivolous
claim is one “whose disposition is obvious.”).
That description fits this case. Taylor’s complaint
alleges a tale of international intrigue involving the Irish
Republican Army, the CIA’s sale of decommissioned
Russian nuclear warheads to Iran and North Korea, and
CIA agents exchanging long-range missiles for American
and French prisoners. Because the Court of Federal
Claims correctly determined that Taylor’s complaint was
frivolous, we grant the motion to summarily affirm. See
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(Summary affirmance “is appropriate, inter alia, when the
position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of
law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of
the appeal exists.”).
Case: 14-5110 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 08/05/2014

-- 2 of 3 --

TAYLOR v. US 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s19
Case: 14-5110 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 08/05/2014

-- 3 of 3 --