Paulk v. United States Government, Civil Action No. 2025-0489

Plaintiff Lorenz Derek Paulk, proceeding pro se, sued the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), claiming due process and equal protection violations.
Plaintiff sought both equitable relief and damages, alleging government torture via mind control, surveillance, and other conspiratorial acts since 1997 in multiple states.
The complaint was characterized by the Court as containing "rambling ruminations and hypothetical questions," and included assertions about mind control and torture without factual substantiation.
The Court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), requiring dismissal of frivolous cases at any stage.
Plaintiff’s motion to supplement with an equal protection claim and various other motions were also before the court.
Judge Cooper granted the application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint as frivolous, denying the motion to supplement and all other outstanding motions as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a plausible claim under due process and equal protection theories	Paulk alleged the U.S. Government and CIA engaged in torture and mind control, violating his constitutional rights	Government did not appear; court assessed whether the claims were frivolous on initial review	The complaint is frivolous and dismissed without prejudice
Whether amendment (via supplemental motion) would cure deficiencies	Paulk sought to add an Equal Protection Claim	N/A as Government did not respond	Amendment would be futile; motion denied
Jurisdiction over complaints that are facially insubstantial and irrational	Paulk argued there is federal jurisdiction over his constitutional tort claims	N/A	Court lacks jurisdiction over complaints that are wholly insubstantial and fanciful
Disposition of remaining procedural motions	Paulk filed various unspecified motions	N/A	All other outstanding motions denied as moot

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (establishes the pleading standard for facial plausibility in civil complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (heightened pleading standards require factual matter, not mere conclusions)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines standards for determining frivolousness in complaints)
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) (courts cannot hear claims that are unsubstantial or devoid of merit)
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (dismissal appropriate where allegations are wholly incredible or irrational)