noting that a court can dismiss complaints that describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios”
How later courts described this case
- noting that a court can dismiss complaints that describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios”
- “[The plaintiff’s] allegations of a surveillance device that can read minds and manipulate thoughts are fantastic and delusional . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
JOHN LAMAR FILLMER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-04183-SLD-JEH
)
CLAIMS UNIT DIVISION OF RISK )
MANAGEMENT, (CAO) RISK )
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, MANATEE )
COUNTY, MANATEE COUNTY, )
COUNTY OF MANATEE, MANATEE )
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, )
and MANATEE COUNTY SHERIFF
OFFICE,
Defendants.1
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff John Lamar Fillmer filed suit against FCR Claims Unit Division of Risk
Management, Florida (DOFS), alleging that he was “being stalked harrassed [sic] and monitored
under unlawful surveillance violating [his] 4th amendement [sic]” rights. Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.
The Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim but granted him leave to file an
amended complaint. Nov. 16, 2023 Order 3–4, ECF No. 6. Fillmer filed an amended complaint
on December 1, 2023. See Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 7. He alleges that while in a state hospital,
he “heard voices from odd people” who told him “that they were the sheriffs and government” of
Manatee, Florida. Id. at 4. He claims that these voices told him that he had to “sell [his] soul to
them,” that they “run” Manatee and Sarasota County, and not to tell the police or they would kill
1 Plaintiff John Lamar Fillmer listed one defendant in his case caption: “CLAIMS UNIT DIVISION OF RISK
MANAGEMENT, (CAO) RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION, MANATEE COUNTY.” Am. Compl. 1, ECF No.
7. But in the body of the amended complaint, he names other defendants and alleges how they caused him injury.
See id. at 1–3. The Court includes those defendants in the caption as well. The Clerk is directed to update the
docket by adding Manatee County, County of Manatee; Manatee County Board of Commissioners; and Manatee
County Sheriff Office as defendants.
him and his family. Id. Fillmer refers to this as “neural monitoring,” unlawful surveillance, and
electronic harassment and claims that it “is a constant ongoing problem that still causes [him]
mental unrest and physical and emotional problems.” See id. at 4–5.
The court must dismiss an action brought by an individual proceeding in forma pauperis
if it determines the action “is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) allows courts “to pierce the veil of [a] complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989).2 “A claim is factually frivolous if its allegations are bizarre, irrational or
incredible.” Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 829 (7th Cir. 2007); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328
(noting that a court can dismiss complaints that describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios”).
Fillmer’s action is factually frivolous. The gist of Fillmer’s complaint is that he has been
subjected to surveillance and harassment by government agents appearing as voices in his head.
These allegations are bizarre, irrational, and incredible. See Ash v. Superior Police Dep’t, Nos.
22-cv-512-jdp, 22-cv-659-jdp, 2022 WL 17403117, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 2, 2022) (“Ash’s
allegations that she is being attacked by radiation, surveilled by military drones, followed
everywhere, and has voices forcefully broadcast to her are irrational and implausible, so they do
not state claims for relief.”); cf. LaVeau v. Snyder, 84 F. App’x 654, 656 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[The
plaintiff’s] allegations of a surveillance device that can read minds and manipulate thoughts are
fantastic and delusional . . . .”).
Accordingly, Fillmer’s action is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as it is frivolous. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Entered this 8th day of January, 2024.
2 Nietzke refers to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is section 1915(d)’s
“materially identical successor.” Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002).
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE