The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-1250•Alvandra J. Allen v. EMMANUEL or BILL LEE
16-1250Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitApr 13, 2016
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 13, 2016*
Decided April 13, 2016
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 16-1250
ALVANDRA J. ALLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EMMANUEL or BILL LEE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 15-cv-1566-PP
Pamela Pepper,
Judge.
O R D E R
Alvandra Allen sued “Emmanuel or Bill Lee” for abusing him shortly after his
birth in 1971 by, among other things, removing his pancreas, shooting him in the head
(an episode in which he says he “died and came back to life”), and replacing his soul
with an evil spirit. The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it because it was frivolous and failed to state a claim.
* The defendant was not served with process in the district court and is not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we
have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition.
See F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 16-1250 Page 2
Allen, the court ruled, did not allege any federal or constitutional violations and, to the
extent he tried to allege any criminal charges, he lacked standing to do so.
On appeal Allen states that his “legal argument” is “to gather everyone that was
there, especially my doctor at birth,” in order to hold the defendant responsible for his
“violent criminal acts.” Allen develops no reasoned basis for disturbing the district
court’s ruling that his allegations are frivolous. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A);
see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989) (district courts may dismiss suits
describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios”). We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s
judgment.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.