Opinion
Civil Action No. 08 2244.
December 18, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on consideration of a pro se complaint and a joint application to proceed in forma pauperis filed on behalf of the individual plaintiff and RMD Marketing and Merchandising ("RMD"). The Court will grant the individual's application, deny the application for RMD, and dismiss the complaint.
Alleging violations of the plaintiff's 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendment protections, the complaint states that six CIA webmasters have been violating the individual plaintiff's right to computer privacy and intercepting and sending back email, and that the webmasters have been "threatening [the plaintiff's] life on a daily basis with the intent to defraud [him] and [his] corporation by illegal force." (Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations and provides no specific facts.
Only individuals, not corporations or other legal entities, may proceed pro se and in forma pauperis. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (stating that only a person, not an entity, may proceed pro se); Lennon v. McClory, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1461, 1462 n. 1 (D.D.C. 1998) (stating that a corporation cannot appear pro se). Therefore, RMD's application to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied. To the extent that the complaint intends to represent claims on behalf of RMD, those claims must be dismissed.
A complaint that alleges only vague or conclusory allegations without specific facts regarding the alleged wrongdoing does not allow a defendant to frame an intelligent defense and is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) as "lacking an arguable basis in fact" and therefore failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Plaintiff's complaint does not allege facts sufficient to provide a basis in fact, and will therefore be dismissed in its entirety.
An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.