Filed: Jul. 19, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-19-2005 Mensah v. Natl Crime Info Ctr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1872 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Mensah v. Natl Crime Info Ctr" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 816. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/816 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by t
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-19-2005 Mensah v. Natl Crime Info Ctr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1872 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Mensah v. Natl Crime Info Ctr" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 816. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/816 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by th..
More
Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-19-2005
Mensah v. Natl Crime Info Ctr
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1872
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Mensah v. Natl Crime Info Ctr" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 816.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/816
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DPS-211 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1872
________________
CAROLYN R. MENSAH,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, NATIONAL CRIME
INFORMATION CENTER*
(*Amended per Clerk's Order of 3/30/05)
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-01101)
District Judge: Honorable Marvin Katz
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
April 28, 2005
Before: ROTH, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed :July 19, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Carolyn R. Mensah, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed suit against the
United States Department of Justice National Crime Information Center, seeking to
expunge any derogatory information or criminal record allegedly improperly registered
under her name and the names of her sons. She claimed that, as a result of incorrect
information recorded in the National Crime Information Center, the FBI and other agents
of the government put her and her sons under surveillance, framed them for crimes they
did not commit, and forced them to commit sex acts on Osprey pilots and others. She
also alleged that she and her family members have suffered grievous harm from FBI-
controlled lasers and radio waves. In her complaint, and apparently included by reference
on forms for a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that she
filed at the same time as her complaint, Mensah also contended that her older son, either
as a cat or as a person, has been detained in an undisclosed location by an FBI agent
named O’Malley.
The District Court dismissed Mensah’s action as frivolous. Mensah appeals.
We agree with the District Court that Mensah’s claims against the National Crime
Information Center are clearly baseless.1 Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32-3 (1992).
Her appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2005).
1
She has waived any claims against an FBI agent named O’Malley by asserting that the
National Crime Information Center was the sole defendant in her District Court suit.