December 2, 2013
BRUD ROSSMAN, Plaintiff,
LENNERT LEADER, et al, Defendants.
For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court consolidates two substantially similar complaints that the plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court on September 20, 2013. Upon review of plaintiff s applications to proceed in forma pauperis and both Pro se civil complaints, the Court will grant the applications and dismiss the complaints.
"Plaintiff. . . file[d] this Verified Complaint (VC) alleging battery ... in the context of government and 'private sector' sponsored Research & Development (R&D) and investigation abuse." Compl. ¶ 1 at 1; see Id . ¶ 2 at 7 (alleging "aggravated battery with intent"). According to plaintiff, "Defendants physically touched [him], without his consent, in a harmful or offensive manner, " by sponsoring the "injurious painful, or harassing, physical, Wireless signal transmissions, or ground-level violations, such as police beatings, and other 'intangible' or tangible violations of Plaintiff s rights ...." Id. ¶ 126 at 83-84. Some of these alleged "unlawful 'touchings', were comprised of approximately Thirty Eight Million Five Hundred Forty Four Thousand ... wireless signal transmissions, while Plaintiff was awake, ... spanning the eleven (11) years, April 29, 2002 ... to April 29, 2013." Id. ¶ 127 at 84-85; see Id . ¶ 132 at 90 (alleging that defendants were "facilitating (i) the Wireless War Platform delivery of de facto 'bullets' aimed at Plaintiff['s] head and Brain by definition, Brainwave Entrainment as Target Practice, on a multi-Billion Dollar Satellite War Platform, and (ii) lies, concealment, cover up, coded euphemisms, and de facto aiding and abetting of a known, de facto criminal operation"). Plaintiff has demanded "Ten Million Dollars ... in compensatory damages [and] Thirty Million Dollars in punitive damages, " as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 95.
Under District of Columbia law, "[a] battery is an intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive bodily contact." Etheridge v. District of Columbia, 635 A.2d 908, 916 (D.C. 1993) (quoting Jackson v. District of Columbia, 412 A.2d 948, 955 (D.C. 1979)); see Marshall v. District of Columbia, 391 A.2d 1374, 1380 (D.C. 1978) ("As to the battery claim, once a plaintiff carries the burden of showing an intentional, unpermitted, harmful or offensive contact with his person or something attached to it, he has proved a technical battery.") (citations omitted). It appears that the complaint addresses two elements of a civil battery claim: intentional acts and harmful bodily contact. The complaint does not appear to allege that either of the defendants actually touched plaintiff. Absent allegations of that the defendants caused the harms plaintiff purportedly suffered, the complaint fails to state a claim, and it therefore must be dismissed.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.