Hart v. Lee et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kenneth Hannibal Hart
v. 	Civil No. 19-cv-720-PB
In-Oh Lee et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Kenneth Hannibal Hart, has filed an action that
is before this court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d), to determine, among other things,
whether the action is frivolous or malicious.
The court has reviewed the complaint, construing it
liberally in light of plaintiff’s pro se status. 	See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). 	Here, the
plaintiff contends he is the focus of racially motivated acts of
torture, striking different parts of his body, causing him pain,
disfunction, disease, and injuries. 	He attributes those attacks
to the “black arts” of foreign and domestic agents. 	He names as
defendants individuals and groups of people whom he identifies
by ethnicity, immigration status, or national origin, and he
alleges that they have hurt him with the complicity of local,
state, and federal law enforcement officials and New Hampshire
Case 1:19-cv-00720-PB Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 3

2
State Hospital staff.
A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” 	Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous
only if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” a
category encompassing allegations that are “fanciful,”
“fantastic,” and “delusional.” 	As those words
suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level
of the irrational or the wholly incredible.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (internal
citations omitted, quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327-28).
Hart’s complaint is factually frivolous and asserts no arguable
basis for relief in fact or law. 	The complaint should be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court should dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. 	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. 	Failure to file specific
written 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).
Case 1:19-cv-00720-PB Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 3

3
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 6, 2019
cc: 	Kenneth Hannibal Hart, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-00720-PB Document 5 Filed 08/06/19 Page 3 of 3