Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-12413
01-04-2017
DAVID S. HARLESS, Plaintiff, v. ROOT EDMONSON, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 21, 2016, the plaintiff, David S. Harless, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 2] and an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [ECF No. 1]. The matter was initially referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For reasons appearing to the court, the referral of this matter to the Magistrate Judge is WITHDRAWN and, as further addressed herein, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), because the plaintiff is seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, the court is obliged to screen the case to determine if the Complaint is (i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A "frivolous" claim is defined as one which is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, and lacks "an arguable basis either in law or in fact." See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). This review is conducted before service of process or any responsive pleading from a defendant is required.
At the time of the decisions in Denton and Neitzke, the operative statutory provision was found in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), not section 1915(e). Nevertheless, the analysis thereunder remains the same. --------
DISCUSSION
The Complaint and additional documentation filed by the plaintiff contain incoherent, fanciful ramblings which lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Thus, the court FINDS that the plaintiff's filings are clearly baseless and patently frivolous. "A complaint such as this one that describes fantastic or delusional scenarios is subject to immediate dismissal." See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (holding that a court need not accept irrational and wholly incredible allegations whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to rebut them). Accordingly, the court FINDS that dismissal of this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is appropriate.
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 2] is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff.
ENTER: January 4, 2017
/s/_________
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE