Gill v. United States ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                    FILED
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    APR 1 4 2010
    Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                      Courts for the District of Columbia
    ANDREW GILL,                                  )
    )
    Plaintiff,                     )
    )
    v.                                     )
    )
    Civil Action No.   10 0588
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     )
    )
    Defendant.                     )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in
    forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the
    complaint.
    The court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
    upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
     (1989), the Supreme Court held that trial courts have the authority to dismiss not only claims
    based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions are
    clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of
    cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. !d. at 328. The court has the discretion to
    decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged
    are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 
    504 U.S. 25
    , 33 (1992).
    In a lengthy and rambling complaint, plaintiff alleges that he has been denied a proper
    public education, illegally arrested and incarcerated, sexually harassed, and stalked by police.
    Review of the attachments to the complaint sheds no light on the substance of his claims.
    Plaintiff demands various relief, including an award of monetary damages and the dismissal of
    all criminal charges brought against him in the District of Columbia, Missouri and Florida.
    The court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent
    standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520 (1972). Nevertheless, a review ofplaintiffs complaint reveals that its few factual
    contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and
    must be dismissed. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i).
    An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2010-0588

Judges: Judge Reggie B. Walton

Filed Date: 4/14/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014