From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vellai-Palotay v. City of Monongahela Pennsylvania

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Oct 28, 2007
Civil Action No. 07-1467 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-1467.

October 28, 2007


MEMORANDUM ORDER


Before the court are plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs' motion will be granted, and their complaint dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

II. DISCUSSION

pro se Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

We first address plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Congress has authorized the federal courts to allow a party to proceed with the commencement, prosecution, or defense of an action in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In doing so, Congress recognized the public policy concern that persons who are unable to pay fees or give security should be permitted to prosecute or defend actions that affect their legal rights. Because it appears that plaintiffs are unable to pay the costs associated with commencing this action, we will grant them leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

B. Complaint

Next, we turn to plaintiffs' complaint.

In enacting section 1915, Congress granted the courts an extra measure of authority when evaluating an in forma pauperis action. Under that section, the court shall dismiss such an action if it determines that the action is frivolous, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Id. at §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(I), (ii). If it so finds, the court may dismiss a claim sua sponte, even before the summons issues. Johnstone v. United States, 980 F. Supp. 148, 150 (E.D.Pa. 1997).

A complaint is frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," or sets forth "clearly baseless" factual contentions. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). This is clearly such a case. Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to allege, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, any basis for federal court jurisdiction of their claim. See ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir. 1994).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but will dismiss their complaint as frivolous and as failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Additionally, the case will be dismissed for failure to assert any viable federal court jurisdiction.

An appropriate order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30 day of October, 2007, upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, said motion is hereby GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' complaint is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice.


Summaries of

Vellai-Palotay v. City of Monongahela Pennsylvania

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Oct 28, 2007
Civil Action No. 07-1467 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2007)
Case details for

Vellai-Palotay v. City of Monongahela Pennsylvania

Case Details

Full title:EVA B. VELLAI-PALOTAY and CHRISTOPHER JAMES PALOTAY, Plaintiffs, v. CITY…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 28, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 07-1467 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2007)