From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tiburcio v. Roxbury Cmty. Health Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Aug 7, 2012
Civil Action No. 12 1301 (D.D.C. Aug. 7, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12 1301

08-07-2012

SEIDY MARIA TIBURCIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROXBURY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, et al., Defendants.1


MEMORANDUM OPINION

For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the court consolidates six complaints that the plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court on July 11, 2012. Upon review of the plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis and each pro se civil complaint, the court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaints.

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)(1)(B), 1915A(b)(l). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has 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. Id. at 328. The trial 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).

The plaintiff alleges that defendants have administered "a[n] illegal toxic liquid substance" which is "burning ... all [her] organs," causing "damage [to her] body," as well as "moderate pain." Compl. at 1. She accuses the defendants of "confabulating against [her] human rights" by causing the "crime [of] burning damage [to] all [her] organs." Id. To each complaint the plaintiff attaches multiple exhibits, none of which shed light on the claims she may intend to raise.

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). Having reviewed the plaintiff's complaints, the Court concludes that what factual contentions are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaints are frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

An Order is issued separately.

_______________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Tiburcio v. Roxbury Cmty. Health Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Aug 7, 2012
Civil Action No. 12 1301 (D.D.C. Aug. 7, 2012)
Case details for

Tiburcio v. Roxbury Cmty. Health Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:SEIDY MARIA TIBURCIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROXBURY COMMUNITY HEALTH…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Aug 7, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 12 1301 (D.D.C. Aug. 7, 2012)