Johnson v. Drug Enforcement

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10612
Conference Calendar
DARRELL S. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CV-410-G
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrell S. Johnson, a Texas resident, challenges the
district court’s denial of his application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district court’s
dismissal of his civil complaint as frivolous. Johnson is
effectively challenging the district court’s certification that
he should not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not
taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202
(5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-10612
-2-
Johnson’s action concerns the alleged 1996 implantation of a
transmitter in his scalp by the Drug Enforcement Administration
(“DEA”). He has alleged that the DEA has thus caused him to be:
“aggressively sought after for purposes of sexual reasons by many
famous individuals”; made a “laughing st[oc]k to[ ] members of
Organized Crime Families[ ] and Cripps/Bloods Gang members”;
known by 70 percent of the United States’s population; subjected
to “extremely high numbers of sexual assaults” by a “vigilante
mob”; and exploited by “wealthy persons” from Europe and Asia who
have sought to “clone [his] spiritual persona” and “remov[e]
[his] Reproductive Fluids.” The district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that such allegations were factually
frivolous; the allegations are indeed “fanciful,” “fantastic,”
and “delusional.” See Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th
Cir. 2001); Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir. 1995).
Because Johnson has failed to show that his complaint
presented nonfrivolous issues for appeal, we uphold the district
court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good
faith. Johnson’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
& n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Johnson is warned that future frivolous
filings will subject him to sanctions.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --