◆ SpookStack

the plaintiff, or a deprivation of plaintiff's right to counsel, without supporting factual allegations, have been dismissed. Frankos v. LaVallee, supra. A dismissal is similarly warranted in the instant case. Allofplaintiffs' charges are conclusory in nature and without any supporting factual allegations. Plaintiff has not described one specific action taken by defendant. Defendant Morgenthau has no power over the federal mails and doubtless no possible power over electro-cosmic controlled bio-feedback implants. Plaintiff brought almost exactly the same complaint, without naming Robert Morgenthau as a defendant, in two suits in the Eastern District of New York. Both complaints were dismissed for failure to state a course of action. The conclusions of Judges Platt and Dooling in those cases are clearly applicable here: The statements and facts alleged in plain- tiff's complaint, as amended, are of course such that there is substantial question as to whether they might even be theoretically possible, much less rationally probable... It is apparent from a reading of plaintiff's complaint that it does not set forth charges to which defendants can intelligently respond. Even assuming the existence of some sort of conspiracy among the defendants, thereis, for example, no description of the role played in it by any defendant. Nor does plaintiff say how the ends of the conspiracy were brought about. The origin of the conspiracy is not discussed, nor are the hardships and damage referred to by plaintiff even specifi- cally described...The complaint in this ac- ‘tion fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See attached Exhibit A, De- cision of Judge PLATT dismissing Carter v. Strachem et al., 75 Civ. 1132, March 8, 1976, pp. 3,4,8). , -4-~