Lecher, Matthew v. Borges, Brad et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MATTHEW LECHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRAD BORGES, BRANDY MADISON,
LISA CONIGLIO, JEREMY PHINNEY,
STEVE KONITZER, MICHELLE KONITZER,
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-34-jdp
Plaintiff Matthew Lecher, proceeding without counsel, alleges that he is being subjected
to “persistent auditory intrusions” through the use of “voice to skull” or other technologies.
Dkt. 1, at 2. The court has allowed Lecher to proceed without prepayment of any portion of
the filing fee. Dkt. 3.
The next step is for me to screen Lecher’s complaint and dismiss any portion that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money
damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
Ordinarily, I must accept a plaintiff’s allegations as true when I screen a complaint. But
I must reject allegations as factually frivolous if they are “bizarre, irrational or incredible.”
Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 829 (7th Cir. 2007). Lecher’s allegations that a group of
defendants are conspiring to harass him by communicating messages directly to his thoughts
using technology are fantastical and thus factually frivolous. Therefore, he fails to state a claim
against any defendant named in the caption.
Case: 3:26-cv-00034-jdp Document #: 5 Filed: 01/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has cautioned against dismissing an
unrepresented plaintiff’s case without giving them a chance to amend the complaint. Felton v.
City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636 (7th Cir. 2016). But in this case, dismissal of this lawsuit is
appropriate because there isn’t any reason to think that Lecher could amend his complaint to
fix the problem discussed above.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	This case is DISMISSED.
2. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
Entered January 23, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00034-jdp Document #: 5 Filed: 01/23/26 Page 2 of 2