Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-1165 (UNA)
06-12-2018
Renee Ferebee, Plaintiff, v. Civil Rights Division, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Under the statute governing IFP proceedings, the Court is required to dismiss a case "at any time" if it determines that the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Complaints premised on fantastic or delusional scenarios or supported wholly by allegations lacking "an arguable basis either in law or in fact" are subject to dismissal as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) ("[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]"); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). The instant complaint satisfies this standard.
Plaintiff has submitted a document captioned "Potential Lawsuit Claim (Autobiography) Civil Rights Being Violated." Based on the address of the defendant, plaintiff purports to sue the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, see Compl. Caption, for "two tillion [sic] dollars[,]" Compl. at 2. Plaintiff begins: "As I am writing this claim, among my unstable fellow men and women, I am being molested, raped, day in and day out." Id. at 1. Plaintiff ponders whether she should be like the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and "turn the other cheek," but then describes her "stand [as] more like the late Harriet Tubman, who didn't turn her cheek" but instead used her gun. Id. The complaint continues in this largely incoherent manner and concludes: "The late John F. Kennedy ask: Ask not what the Country have done for us, but Ms. Renee asks, what in the hell (Civil Rights) are you doing for Ms. Renee." Id. at 2.
The instant complaint is comprised of incredible accusations having nothing to do with the named defendant and an unfocused diatribe. It lacks a cogent statement of facts. Because the Court foresees no possibility of a cure, it will dismiss this action with prejudice. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (A dismissal with prejudice is warranted upon determining "that 'the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.'") (quoting Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (other citation omitted)). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/_________
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge Date: June 12, 2018