Glenn WINNINGHAM, Appellant v. Douglas SHULMAN, et al., Appellees, 377 F. App'x 23

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 30, 2009, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless”).

Claims like those of appellant, involving “bizarre conspiracy theories, [or] fantastic government manipulations of [one’s] will or mind,” Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C.Cir.1994), are “obviously frivolous,” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.