Opinion
Case No. 01-4030-JAR
February 25, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Robert Leon Stanfield is proceeding prose and in forma pauperis. In his complaint he states his claim as:
Department of Defense. "Hersay" numbers of decisive 3 million — 2 Billion People The Intimidated Extortive Army of "Murder Fun" As Plenary Investigation Equipment will reveal as before Human Life means Nothing. Equipment most Important.
The remainder of Stanfield's complaint contains similar incoherent ramblings. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court may dismiss sua sponte an in forma pauperis action as frivolous or as failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Such dismissal is appropriate "if the plaintiff cannot make a rational argument on the law and facts" in support of his claim, or if it is "patently obvious" that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing an opportunity to amend would be futile.
Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (10th Cir. 1997).
Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
"[A] factual frivolousness finding is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." However, the court may not dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint "simply because the court finds the allegations to be improbable or unlikely." Generally, a complaint is legally frivolous if it is based on an "indisputably meritless legal theory" such as an "infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist."
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 26 (1992).
Id.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
In analyzing Stanfield's complaint, the Court must take into consideration the fact that he is proceeding pro se. A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Thus, if a pro se plaintiff's complaint can reasonably be read "to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it [the court] should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements." However, it is not "the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant." For that reason, the court should not "construct arguments or theories for the plaintiff in the absence of any discussion of those issues," nor should it "supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on plaintiff's behalf."
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
Id.
Id.
Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
The Court finds that there is no logical construction of Stanfield's complaint from which to divine a viable claim against the named defendants. Most of the complaint is little more than a compilation of unintelligible and disjointed thoughts. Based upon its review of the complaint, the Court believes that any attempt to remedy the complaint would be futile.
See Sanner v. U.S. Government, 979 F. Supp. 1327 (D.Kan. 1997).
See Moll v. Sweaver, 1997 WL 823573 (D.Kan. Nov. 18, 1997).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Stanfield's complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.