Opinion
Civil Action No. 10 1826.
October 28, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperisand prosecivil 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 the defendants have bribed federal and state government agencies, as well as private companies, "to maliciously tort harass [her] . . . when [she] is praying at home . . . every day through [Obama's] term." Compl. at 1. Plaintiff deems this behavior "relegous [sic] persecution" because the President allegedly "is a Muslim and [plaintiff is] a Christian. Id. Plaintiff does not demand damages or any other 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. See Haines 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