FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

February 2, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

AARON J. DURHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JEFFREY B. WHEATON, Dr., D.D.S.; ARDENT HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; HEALTHCARE FOR THE HOMELESS; UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES; UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER; STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

	Defendants ‑ Appellees.
	No. 06-2299
(D.C. No. CIV-06-290 MCA/ACT)
(D.N.M.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

	
	Plaintiff-Appellant Aaron Durham, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.  Mr. Durham claimed in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the Defendants-Appellees violated his constitutional rights by, inter alia, surgically implanting “optical electron microcircuits” in fillings in his teeth and utilizing the signals broadcast by these devices to monitor Mr. Durham’s location and speech, in service of a larger project of investigating and prosecuting Mr. Durham as an enemy combatant.
	We review dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for abuse of discretion.  McWilliams v. State of Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997).  Under the abuse of discretion standard, “a trial court's decision will not be disturbed unless the appellate court has a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.”  United States v. Weidner, 437 F.3d 1023, 1042 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting McEwen v. City of Norman, 926 F.2d 1539, 1553-54 (10th Cir. 1991)).  “An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical, or results in a manifestly unreasonable judgment.”  Id. (quoting Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d 1499, 1504 (10th Cir. 1994)).  
	Finding no evidence of caprice, whimsy, or a clear error in judgment in the district court’s ruling, we AFFIRM its dismissal of Mr. Durham’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2).

						ENTERED FOR THE COURT

						David M. Ebel
						Circuit Judge