Zarlenga et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
____________________________________
)
LORI A. ZARLENGA, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-CV-00692-JJM-AEM
)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 	)
AGENCY, et al 	)
Defendants. 	)
____________________________________)
ORDER
Lori A. Zarlenga, a plaintiff not unknown to the Court, has filed a civil action
that is accompanied by a Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). When such a
motion is filed, the Court is required to review the Complaint to determine whether it
states a plausible federal claim for relief. 	If it does not, the Court must deny the
motion and dismiss the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Description of the Lawsuit
This lawsuit represents Lori. Zarlenga’s second telling of a familiar story.1 In
this case, she has sued about 94 named entities/individuals, 1,000 “John Does,” 1,000
“Jane Does,” and an infinite number of “as yet unknown” persons. The initial named
1 An earlier Complaint, No. 22-cv-00372-MSM, also sued dozens and dozens of
entities and individuals, beginning with the FBI. Many of the same people – including
three past Directors of the FBI, three former Presidents, many state judges, and many
doctors associated with Rhode Island Hospital’s psychiatry division – were sued in
that and this case. Ms. Zarlenga accused all Defendants of conspiring to deprive her
of her civil rights by “[a]mbushing, targeting, stalking, harassing, wiretapping,
hacking Plaintiff’s computers and phone, unlawful stops, [and] unlawful search and
seizure.” (ECF No. 1, at 18 of 101.) The Court dismissed that 2022 Complaint.
Case 1:25-cv-00692-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
defendant is the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) of the United States, but it is in
the company of such others as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the United
States Department of Justice, the United States itself, all the courts in Rhode Island
(except the federal court), Butler [psychiatric] Hospital, Facebook, the states of Rhode
Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, the cities of Providence, West Warwick,
Warwick, and Coventry, the Foxwoods & Mohegan Sun casinos, a slew of state and
federal officials past and present (from U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi to R.I.
State Police Superintendent James Manni and including past Presidents Bush,
Obama, and Biden), a bunch of police departments, a large number of individual law
enforcement officers, and a long list of doctors apparently associated with medical
entities with which she has come into contact. Page 8 of the Complaint begins to name
as “additional defendants” (not included in the caption) a number of businesses (such
as Best Buy, Gem Plumbing and Heating, Stop & Shop, Doordash, etc.) and a very,
very long line of individuals apparently associated with the Nashua Street apartments
in Providence.
A problem at the outset is that Lori Zarlenga’s mother, Victoria, is apparently
deceased and yet has been included as a plaintiff. There is an allegation that Victoria
was murdered by doctors, in concert with the FBI/CIA, by toxic prescriptions and
overdoses (“Plaintiff’s mother, Victoria Ann Zarlenga, was intentionally killed via fatal
drug 	combinations 	(Bactrim/Warfarin, 	overdoses) 	prescribed 	by 	doctors 	at 	the
direction or with the knowledge of FBI/CIA operatives, constituting a political
assassination.”) ECF No. 1, at 12 § III(4). For obvious reasons Victoria Zarlenga has
Case 1:25-cv-00692-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
not signed the Complaint, nor is there a signature of an authorized representative of
her estate. Lori Zarlenga asserts she is her late mother’s “representative,” but there
is no showing that she is the executor of the estate.
	Americus Mortg. Corp. v. Mark,
2013 WL 3106018, *14 (D. Mass. June 17, 2013).
The 83-page Complaint does not include a coherent narrative, but the gist of it
is a complaint that for 30 years Ms. Zarlenga 2 has been targeted by various agencies
of the government, and harassed, surveilled and intimidated by what seems to be
every agency and individual with which she has come into contact. 	She suggests a
giant conspiracy, embracing the many evictions she has endured, hacking of her
computer, sabotage of her court cases, environmental assaults (e.g., bed bugs,
pesticides), and attempts to assassinate her.
While the bulk of the Complaint is a list of accusations stemming from
incidents, some of it describes the conspiracy she believes has been launched against
her:
Plaintiff has been targeted for over 30 years by the FBI and CIA. The
origin of this targeting stems from a 1995 lawsuit filed by Plaintiff on
October 25, 1995 involving contaminated tryptophan distributed by
Showa Denko KK and other defendants. 	Plaintiff’s case was used to
reopen discovery, exposing liability for the FDA and triggering federal
retaliation. Plaintiff’s support for President Donald Trump during his
candidacy 	and 	presidency 	further 	escalated 	the 	targeting. 	Public
statements by former FBI official Phil Mudd on CNN confirm that
federal agencies have expressed intent to assassinate President Trump,
an American citizen. Plaintiff asserts that the same agencies have
deployed assassination protocols against a whistleblower and political
target.
2 In the rest of this Order, “Ms. Zarlenga” and “the plaintiff” refers to Lori A.
Zarlenga.
Case 1:25-cv-00692-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
(ECF No. 1, at 37). 	The first concrete incident alleged is a 2006 kidnapping by
Warwick Police, followed by episodic commitment to psychiatric institutions. 	She
complains of “forced institutionalization.”
The factual allegations are specific, but the connection between the activities
described and the alleged conspiracy is either omitted or too tenuous to support
plausibility. 	For example, she points to many times certain vehicles (which she
identifies by license plate) allegedly containing CIA operatives were waiting in her
vicinity but she does not connect that presumed surveillance to any violation of federal
law. She cites deviations from normal protocols involving inspections at her housing
complex as evidence of “covert intent.” An example of such an accusation is: “March 8,
2025 – Forced Entry by Krystle Otero and John Lattieri – Krystle Otero, under false
pretense of a ‘room check,’ placed her foot between Plaintiff’s apartment door,
preventing closure. 	John Lattieri was stationed outside to unlock the building
entrance for Providence Police, facilitating a coordinated assassination attempt.”
Neither Krystle Otero nor John Lattieri is named defendant.
Non-Compliance with Rules of Procedure
The Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se and is therefore entitled to some leniency from
the Court in applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972), but that status does not absolve her from the need to comply with
basic procedural requirements.
	F.D.I.C. v. Anchor Properties, 13 F.3d 27, 31 (1994).
The first of these requirements is that the Complaint be cast as a “short and plain
statement” of both the court’s jurisdiction and of the claim. Fed. R. Civ P. 8(a)(1) and
Case 1:25-cv-00692-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
(2). 	The Court is generally capable of inferring the basis for jurisdiction if the claim
is clear, but if the claim itself is not clear, the Court cannot assess the merits of the
lawsuit at all, nor can it determine the plausibility of the claim. The requirement that
the Complaint be short is not simply to avoid killing more trees than necessary: it is
because it is not the Court’s role to sift through the Complaint trying to match alleged
incidents with defendants or counts.
Campbell v. Smith, No. 2:21-cv-01172-KJM-CKD
P, 2022 WL 1138272, at *2 (E.D. Cal. April 18, 2022) (not court’s role to draft a
complaint). 	The Court cannot easily discern where there might be a plausible claim
for relief. Because of that, the Court cannot grant the IFP Motion.
Opportunity to Amend
The Court understands ordinarily it should extend an opportunity to amend a
Complaint, particularly to a
pro se litigator. Indeed, the First Circuit made that clear
in Ms. Zarlenga’s previous action in this Court.
Zarlenga v. United States, No. 22-cv-
00372-MSM-PSA, ECF No. 56. In this case, the Court declines to do so, for the reasons
below.
Ms. Zarlenga is not new to federal court litigation. This is the second time she
has been a plaintiff, and she has been a defendant twice. 	Her filings indicate a
frequent non-compliance with Rules of Procedure and a basic lack of understanding of
how federal litigation works or even that it is governed by rules. 	For example, she
attempted to remove an eviction case and a civil commitment – essentially state court
matters – to the federal court: 	both were remanded, but not until after she failed to
cooperate in transmitting the record, an appeal was taken, and she filed many motions
Case 1:25-cv-00692-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
and exhibits despite the district court’s loss of jurisdiction.
	Providence Center v.
Zarlenga, No. 25-cv-00126-JJM-PAS. 	In No. 22-cv-00372-MSM-LDA, she defaulted
on an appeal in the Circuit for failure to file a brief. ECF No. 49.
She also appears incapable of complying with the “short and plain statement”
rule. In 22-cv-00372-MSM-LDA, after her first 101-page Complaint was found not in
compliance with Rule 8(a)’s mandate, she filed a 151-page Complaint that again was
neither “short” nor “plain,” nor did it state a plausible claim for relief. See Text Order
of 12/11/24.
She has filed two motions for “emergency” relief (ECF No. 9, 10) from what she
claims is an “ongoing, coordinated attempt by federal agencies—including but not
limited to the FBI and CIA—together with Providence Police Department[, t]he
Providence Center staff and other local actors, to assassinate me, constituting criminal
conspiracy and crimes against humanity.” (ECF No. 9). 	The only fact alleged to
support the conspiracy allegation is that a staff member of the Providence Center
parked a vehicle outside her apartment and remained sitting in it. (ECF No. 9, at 2.)
The 	essential 	allegation 	of 	the 	Complaint 	– 	that 	there 	is 	a 	vast
conspiracy intent on carrying out a nefarious and fantastical scheme of
kidnap and assassination – is simply not plausible on its face. And such
factual allegations as there are do not support an inference of either a
conspiracy or its malicious purpose. 	The Complaint “is comprised of
precisely the type of ‘fantastic,’ ‘delusional,’ and ‘incredible’ allegations
that warrant dismissal as factually frivolous. Essentially, Plaintiff's
complaint is nothing more than a collection of totally unsubstantiated
events compiled by an individual who believes that various things are
occurring to her, which simply are illogical and delusional.
Marshall v. Stengel, Case No. 3:10CV–159–S, 2010 WL 1930172, at *3 (W. D. Ky.
May 12, 2010) (dismissing for failure to state a plausible claim).
Case 1:25-cv-00692-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Ms. Zarlenga may believe she is the target of hugely powerful people and
institutions, but her allegations are factually frivolous. 	District judges are “all too
familiar” with “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.”
	Denton v.
Hernandez,504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (factually frivolous Complaints may be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). The allegation of conspiracy here is more than improbable:
it is irrational and incredible.
	Id. 	The Court finds that Ms. Zarlenga’s Complaint is
fantastical and frivolous. 	A frivolous case may be dismissed without an opportunity
to amend.
Forte v. Sullivan, 935 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1991).
In addition, leave to amend should be granted when the defects in a Complaint
are fixable. 	The Court does not believe, based on Ms. Zarlenga’s previous filings in
her several cases, that this Complaint can be fixed because it is predicated on what
appears to be a delusion. 	And based on Ms. Zarlenga’s unsuccessful prior attempts
to file a claim that is “short and plain,” the Court does not believe there is any realistic
possibility that she could do so here.
Thus, the case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) and the Motion
to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot, and all pending motions and denied
as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-00692-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
SO ORDERED:
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
__________________________________
John J. McConnell, Jr.,
Chief Judge
District Court
January 14, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00692-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>