From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Little v. Wmata

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jul 9, 2015
Case: 1:15-cv-01095 Jury Demand (D.D.C. Jul. 9, 2015)

Opinion

Case: 1:15-cv-01095 Jury Demand

07-09-2015

JOYCE LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. WMATA, Defendant.


Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 7/13/2015
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil F Deck
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and her pro se complaint. For the reasons stated below, 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).

According to the plaintiff, WMATA has failed to keep her safe when, for example, its "employees demanded that [she] have sex with them, cannibalize the fetuses produced, commit crimes to get drugs for them, and shoot up with them." Compl. at 2-3. The plaintiff demands that WMATA "cease and desist from its maniacal, raging Caucasian prejudice against [her]," as well as an award of $75,000, among other relief. Id. at 4. While 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, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the complaint's 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)(1)(B).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

/s/_________

United States District Judge
DATE:
7/9/15


Summaries of

Little v. Wmata

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jul 9, 2015
Case: 1:15-cv-01095 Jury Demand (D.D.C. Jul. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Little v. Wmata

Case Details

Full title:JOYCE LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. WMATA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Jul 9, 2015

Citations

Case: 1:15-cv-01095 Jury Demand (D.D.C. Jul. 9, 2015)