Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-3051 (UNA)
04-16-2019
ANTOINE MARTWAIN HILL-EL, Plaintiff, v. GERALD FISHER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) ("[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."). Having reviewed the plaintiff's complaint carefully, the Court concludes that what factual contentions are identifiable - including the plaintiff's assertions of entitlement to relief because he is a Moorish-American national - are baseless and wholly incredible.
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(2). Further, the Court notes that dismissal of this civil action qualifies as a third "strike" for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Unless plaintiff demonstrates that he is under imminent threat of serious physical injury, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in a future civil action.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: April 16, 2019
/s/_________
United States District Judge
See Hill-El v. Johnson, No. 18-CV-1411, 2019 WL 613931, at *1 (W.D. La. Feb. 13, 2019) (dismissing complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A); Hill-El v. Scrivener, No. 8:18-CV-3643 (D. Md. Dec. 10, 2018) (dismissing complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)).