From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Girma v. U.S. Department of Labour

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Oct 28, 2010
Civil Action No. 10 1827 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10 1827.

October 28, 2010


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's 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)(1)(B). 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).

Plaintiff alleges that she has been "stalked by government helicopter and airplanes for the past six years . . . to [her] places of work and housing." Compl. at 1. In addition, plaintiff she alleges that her employment and medical records have been deleted or otherwise falsified. See id. Although she has "submitted numerous complaints with the DC Superior Court . . . when [she] attempted to submit a case in Federal Court[,] a federal judged prevented [her] from doing so." Id. Plaintiff does not demand any relief.

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. SeeHaines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the court concludes that its 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 Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: 10/20/10


Summaries of

Girma v. U.S. Department of Labour

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Oct 28, 2010
Civil Action No. 10 1827 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2010)
Case details for

Girma v. U.S. Department of Labour

Case Details

Full title:KEDIST GIRMA, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Oct 28, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 10 1827 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2010)