Opinion
Civil Action 22-1199 (UNA)
05-27-2022
MICAH ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW JAY SCHWARTZMAN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TREVOR N. MCFADDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Under the statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, having reviewed the complaint carefully, the Court concludes that it cannot discern what claim or claims plaintiff intends to bring; the complaint will thus be dismissed. See Gwinnell-Kennedy v. U.S. Gov't Judiciary, No. 09-cv-737, 2009 WL 1089543, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2009) (summarily dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because it was “incoherent”); McGuire v. U.S. District Court, No. 10-cv-696, 2010 WL 1855858, at *1 (D.D.C. May 4, 2010) (summarily dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because it was “largely incoherent and nonsensical”); cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing .... factual allegations and legal conclusions . . . lack[ing] an arguable basis either in law or in fact” shall be dismissed.). In addition, the Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. A separate order will issue.