Fisherman v. Doe 1 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Leonard J. Fisherman, Jr.
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-246-SE
John Doe Nos. 1-8, et. al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Leonard. J. Fisherman, Jr., appearing pro se, has
sued several federal law enforcement agents and intelligence
officials, claiming to be the victim of “satellite/remote neural
monitoring technology," in violation of his constitutional
rights. 	Mr. Fisherman’s complaint is before the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. 	See LR 4.3(d)(1)
(directing complaints filed by incarcerated plaintiffs appearing
pro se be forwarded to the magistrate judge for preliminary
review).1
Preliminary Review Standard
The court conducts a preliminary review of complaints filed
by incarcerated plaintiffs seeking relief from government
1Mr. Fisherman originally filed his complaint on July 5,
2022. (Doc. No. 1). 	He has since filed three subsequent
complaints. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9 and 13). 	While the court considers
the “4th Verified Complaint” (Doc. No. 13) to be the operative
complaint, this preliminary review is taking into consideration
the allegations in the previous three filings as well as Mr.
Fisherman’s motion to add more defendants (Doc. No. 10).
Case 1:22-cv-00246-SE Document 14 Filed 01/09/23 Page 1 of 4

2
agents. 	See LR 4.3(d)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	In
considering whether the complaint states a claim, the court
determines whether, stripped of legal conclusions, and with all
reasonable inferences construed in plaintiff's favor, the
complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to ‘state a claim to relief’” upon which relief can be granted.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
Claims may be dismissed, sua sponte, if the court lacks
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); LR 4.3(d)(1)(A).
Factual Background
Mr. Fisherman’s lengthy complaint is disorganized and often
difficult to follow. 	The gist of his allegations is that,
beginning in 2012 while he was incarcerated in Minnesota,2
federal authorities and their agents used satellite-based neural
monitoring to learn about Mr. Fisherman’s “entire life,”
including his childhood, adulthood, religion, and relationships.
Complaint (Doc. No. 13) at 15. 	According to Mr. Fisherman, the
agents first offered to prove Mr. Fisherman’s criminal innocence
through the use of that satellite technology (by reading his
2In Minnesota, Mr. Fisherman was convicted of sexual assault
and subsequently for assaulting a fellow inmate. 	See State v.
Fisherman, No. A14-1591, 2015 WL 5511390 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept.
21, 2015).
Case 1:22-cv-00246-SE Document 14 Filed 01/09/23 Page 2 of 4

3
“true thoughts”) in exchange for him becoming a “jailhouse
snitch.” 	When he declined, they nevertheless continued to use
the equipment to monitor him, communicate with him, and
eventually suppress evidence of his innocence.
Discussion
One standard for dismissing claims upon preliminary review
is set forth in Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
(citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327-28 (1989)).
The assertions in the complaint in this case satisfy that
standard, as the complaint lacks “an arguable basis in law or
fact.” 	Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 	While the 	complaint 	must 	be
construed 	liberally, 	the 	Court 	may "pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose
factual contentions are clearly baseless," such as when the claims
describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios" or the 	defendants
are 	immune 	from 	suit. 	Neitzke, 	490 	U.S. 	at 	327-28; see
Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 1983). 	While
this court has no reason to question Mr. Fisherman’s sincerity,
his claims of satellite-based neural monitoring do not give rise
to any nonfrivolous claim upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly, the complaint (Doc No. 13) should be dismissed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 13). 	In addition, if the
Case 1:22-cv-00246-SE Document 14 Filed 01/09/23 Page 3 of 4

4
district judge adopt this recommendation, plaintiff’s motion to
stay (Doc. No. 2), motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 7),
motion to add defendants (Doc. No. 10), and motion for hearing
(Doc. No. 11) should be denied.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to
this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the
district court. 	See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.,
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by
such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. 	See id. Failure to
file any objections within the specified time waives the right
to appeal the district court's Order. 	See Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
January 9, 	2023
cc: 	Leonard Fisherman, Jr., pro se
Case 1:22-cv-00246-SE Document 14 Filed 01/09/23 Page 4 of 4