Weimer v. Penndot Department of Driver's License

Full title: DANIEL LEWIS WEIMER Plaintiff, v. PENNDOT DEPARTMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSE…

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

Date published: Oct 4, 2010

Civil Action No. 10-1275 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-1275.

October 4, 2010

MEMORANDUM

GARY LANCASTER, District Judge

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

I. BACKGROUND

II. Discussion

pro se Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

We first address plaintiff's 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 plaintiff is unable to pay the costs associated with commencing this action, we will grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

B. Complaint

Next, we turn to plaintiff's 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 any of the following: (1) that the action is frivolous or malicious; (2) that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) that the action seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), (iii). If it so finds, the court may dismiss a claim sua sponte, even before the summons issues. Johnstone v. U.S., 980 F. Supp. 148, 150 (E.D. Pa. 1997).

A complaint fails to state a claim if, with all well-pleaded allegations taken as true, and viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it does not state any valid claim for relief. See ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir. 1994). Further, 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). Moreover, a complaint is clearly baseless or frivolous, as a matter of law, if the defendant is immune from suit. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

Here, plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law. Plaintiff's allegations seek to attack summary offenses for traffic violations over which this court lacks jurisdiction. It follows that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed, without prejudice to plaintiff's right to challenge the summary offenses for traffic violations in the appropriate state forum.

An appropriate order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4^th day of October, 2010, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, said motion is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice to plaintiff's right to challenge the summary offenses for traffic violations in the appropriate state forum.