Opinion
Civ. 22-0268 (UNA)
02-23-2022
In re ERICA DAWN KEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the Plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. Because Plaintiff's complaint lacks coherence and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court is required to dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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. Dist. 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).
Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A separate order will issue.