Patel v. United States, 6:24-cv-00426

Plaintiff Raj Patel sued the United States, four current and former U.S. presidents, and numerous unnamed White House attorneys for alleged breach of contract and various torts.
The suit claimed the existence of a fantastical contract involving presidents allowing terrorists to attack Patel in exchange for him remaining a "clueless victim" and receiving compensation.
Patel alleged communication and ratification of this contract through sign language on television and supposed telepathic messages while viewing social media.
Plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis due to low income and significant debt.
The magistrate judge granted Patel's IFP motion but recommended dismissal of the case as frivolous and denial of his motion to perfect service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
In forma pauperis status	Patel cannot pay fees due to low income and high debt	N/A	Granted
Existence of contract	Alleged presidents agreed to fantastical contract, communicated in unusual ways	N/A	No cognizable contract exists
Factually plausible claims	Claims various torts and constitutional violations from the supposed contract and the defendants’ action	N/A	Claims are “fanciful, fantastic, delusional,” thus frivolous
Service of process	Seeks court assistance to serve defendants' attorneys	N/A	Denied as moot due to dismissal

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (complaints based on "indisputably meritless legal theory" or "clearly baseless" facts are frivolous)
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (clarifies scope of factual frivolousness in IFP context)
Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8 ("pure fantasy" standard for frivolous complaints)