United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Azael Dythian Perales' Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”).
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to initiate an
action against the United States Secret Service, the
California State Assembly, the United States Army, the Orange
County Sheriff's Department, his former landlord, and his
former property manager for espionage and conspiracy to
commit espionage. Plaintiff has moved the Court for
permission to proceed without prepayment of fees. It appears
Plaintiff is unable, because of his poverty, to pay the cost
of commencing this action and still provide for himself and
any dependents, and therefore the Court GRANTS his Motion to
Proceed IFP [Doc. 2]. However, for the reasons set forth below,
the Court HEREBY DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc.
1]. The Court also DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to
Correct Case Name [Doc. 5] and Motion to Admit New Related
Cases [Doc. 6].
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a court must sua sponte
dismiss an indigent plaintiff's complaint or any portion
thereof which (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. A complaint is “frivolous” if
“it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Dismissals on this ground should only be
ordered when legal theories are “indisputably
meritless, ” or when the claims rely on factual
allegations that are “clearly
baseless.” “Clearly baseless” factual
allegations include those that are “fanciful, ”
“fantastic, ” and
the Complaint and supporting documents, Plaintiff's
claims are clearly frivolous. Plaintiff provides no factual
basis whatsoever in support of his claims for espionage and
conspiracy to commit espionage, which are patently absurd and
unsupported by any colorable legal theory. Furthermore,
Plaintiff has failed to establish that venue is even proper
in this Court. Indeed, this case appears to be part of a
pattern of abusive litigation practices Plaintiff has engaged
in since 2009. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff's
Complaint is frivolous and fails to state viable legal
the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc.
2]. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint
[Doc. 1]. The Court also DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff's
Motion to Correct Case Name [Doc. 5] and Motion to Admit New
Related Cases [Doc. 6].
 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
 In his Motion to Correct Case Name,
Plaintiff requests the Court change “United States of
America” to “United States of America Secret
Service” in this case's caption. In his Motion to
Admit New Related Cases, Plaintiff requests the Court take
note of certain cases, including unspecified Grand Jury
proceedings against United States House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi and United States Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne
 28 U.S.C. §
 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327 (1989).
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 31 (1992).