Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:02-cv-02632_de48> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:02-cv-02632_de48 RegisterActionDate "2004-10-05" @default.
- ilnd;;1:02-cv-02632_de48 RegisterActionDescriptionText "CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: D230111 sued his parents, alleging that they subjected him to a "mind-reading/transmitting scheme" in violation of the Fouth, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments; federal copyright laws; and various state tort laws. He appealed both the district court's dismissal of his first amended complaint and its subsequent denial of his motion to set aside the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This court consolidated the appeals for briefing and disposition. D230111 or 9F5998A or E674DD9 now asks this court to supplement the record on appeal with his proposed second amended complaint. This complaint was never presented to the district court, and accordingly E674DD9 or D230111 or 9F5998A request to include it as part of the record on appeal is denied. See Henn v. National Geographic Society, 819 F.2d 824,831 (7th Cir. 1987) Additionally, we have reviewed the final orders of the district court, the short records on appeal, and the appellant's brief, and have determined that further briefing would not be helpful to the court's consideration of the issues. See Mather v. Village of Mundelein, 869 F.2d .56,.56 (7th Cir. 1989) (court can decide case before briefing is completed where further briefing would not be helpful and no panel member desires it). In its dismissal order, the district court discussed each of D230111 or 9F5998A or E674DD9 claims. It dismissed his constitutional claims either because E674DD9 or D230111 or 9F5998A had not sufficiently alleged that his parents were acting under the color of state law or because he had not alleged any racial or class-based animus, his copyright claims because his argument that his thoughts were a tangible medium of expression was frivolous, and his reminaing state law claims because the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. But the district court did not need to engage in this analysis. It is clear from D230111 or 9F5998A or E674DD9 filings in this court, and was clear from his filings in the district court, that his claims are not based in reality. A court may dismiss a plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it is nonsensical or delusional. See United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F3d 773,776 (7th Cir. 2004( (summarily affirming district court's dismissal of complaint because the complaint was "incoherent, even crazy.") see also Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1027 (7th Cir. 200) (summarily affirming suit because prisoner's claim that the United States and China were conspiring to "bio-chemically and bio-technologically infect and invade" the prisoner with a mind reading device was frivolous under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.) The district court's orders are summarily affirmed [30-1], [26-1]. ( 03-1685, 03-1866) (gma) (Entered: 10/06/2004)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:02-cv-02632_de48 AdministrativeID "40" @default.