United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES, MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS
KENNETH G. GALE United States Magistrate Judge.
conjunction with his federal court Complaint (Doc. 1.),
pro se Plaintiff Bruce Clement Pennington, Jr. has
filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 3, sealed) with accompanying
financial affidavit (Doc. 3-1, sealed) as well as a Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4, sealed). The Court entered a
“Notice of Deficiency” instructing Plaintiff that
the Complaint and Motion to Appoint both included personal
identifying information and needed to be redacted
immediately. (See June 26, 2017, text entry.)
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a revised Motion to Appoint
Counsel (Doc. 8). Having reviewed Plaintiff's motions, as
well as his Complaint, the Court GRANTS IFP
application and DENIES Plaintiff's request for counsel.
The Court does, however, RECOMMEND that Plaintiffs'
claims against certain Defendants be dismissed as well as
certain causes of action be dismissed for failure to state a
viable federal cause of action.
lengthy, hand-written Complaint generally alleges that he and
other Plaintiffs were abducted and subjected to forced
(unconsented) surgery during which “various medical
tellemetric [sic] and neurologil [sic] prosthetic
devices” were implanted in them along with
cochlear electrodes from brain mapping and stimulation,
electrodes for prolonged monitoring of laryngeal
electromyographic signals from the trachea, vocal cords and
tongue, conductive wires and ink, electrode plates, implanted
activa pulse generator's activa system [sic], deep brain
stimulator ventral tagmental [sic] area targeted electrode,
and a form of remote accessible micro patient programmer.
(See generally Doc. 1 and at pg. 17-18.) The causes
of action alleged by Plaintiff include aggravated kidnapping,
aggravated robbery, torture, violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, theft of intellectual property, a
violation of the right to equality, and a violation of
religious rights. (Id., at 25-28.)
brings his claims against the Kansas University Medical
Research Initiative and at least 22 doctors and other
individuals associated with KUMRI. Additional Defendants
include at least three other doctors as well as
“Medtronic Public Limited Company, ” Wesley
Hospital, and Via Christi Medical Center.
crux of Plaintiff's allegations is that he was kidnapped
by men in surgical scrubs and firefighter uniforms and forced
to submit to unwanted surgery during which electronic
surveillance devices were implanted in him for a nefarious
purpose, theoretically motivated by revenge for money he was
accused of owing one of the non-KUMRI affiliated doctors.
Somehow, according to Plaintiff, his angering this doctor is
related to “studies” being conducted by Defendant
KUMRI in conjunction with Defendant Medtronic. These alleged
“series of research studies” include
the Medtronic Bio Initiative, the Obama Brain Initiative,
Christian Lechner's Rewiring the Adictive [sic] Brain
Using Deep Brain Stimulation, Remote Bio Tellemitry [sic] and
Brain Mapping and several similar studies involving
manipulation and altering of the human mind using frequency
based and milla amp [sic] stimulation of the human brain.
(Id., at 15.) Plaintiff contends these
“chronic research studies” are being
“practiced and taught by the Defendants on unwilling
and many times unaware victims, including the
Plaintiffs.” (Id., at 15-16.)
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize
commencement of an action without prepayment of fees, costs,
etc., by a person who lacks financial means. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). In so doing, the court considers the affidavit of
financial status included with the application. See
is a liberal policy toward permitting proceedings in
forma pauperis when necessary to ensure that the courts
are available to all citizens, not just those who can afford
to pay. See generally, Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d
1471 (10th Cir. 1987). In construing the
application and affidavit, courts generally seek to compare
an applicant's monthly expenses to monthly income.
See Patillo v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162,
2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D.Kan. Apr. 15, 2002); Webb v.
Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1
(D.Kan. July 17, 2000) (denying motion because
“Plaintiff is employed, with monthly income exceeding
her monthly expenses by approximately $600.00”).
supporting financial affidavit, Plaintiff, who is
incarcerated, indicates he is 40 years old and married with
one dependant child for whom he cannot provide monthly
financial assistance while he is incarcerated. (Doc. 3-1,
sealed, at 1-2.) He does, however, owe a significant amount
of past child support. (Id., at 5.) He is currently
unemployed during his incarceration. (Id., at 2.) He
does not own an automobile or real property. (Id.,
lists no cash on hand. (Id., at 4.) The only income
he indicates is a small amount of welfare payments.
(Id.) He has not filed for bankruptcy. (Id.
all of the information contained in his financial affidavit,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that his
access to the Court would be significantly limited absent the
ability to file this action without payment of fees and
costs. The ...