CIVIL ACTION No. 03-5939United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
November 6, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JAMES KELLY, Senior District Judge
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
accompanied by a Complaint with an attached letter addressed to the American Medical Association, dated July 3, 2001, and one styled motion,[1]
dated October 28, 2003, filed by pro se Plaintiff Leslie Ann Kelly (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff’s handwritten Complaint appears to allege a variety of nonsensical scenarios involving a Defendant Shoko Nioko (“Defendant”).[2] Plaintiff categorized this claim as a “Diversity Jurisdiction” case on the Designation Form, used by the Clerk of Court
Page 2
(“Clerk”) to assign cases to the appropriate calender, but fails to set forth a basis for such jurisdiction. Plaintiff now seeks permission to file her claim in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis isGRANTED and her Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is FURTHERORDERED that Plaintiff’s one styled Motion is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
A. In Forma Pauperis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court can allow a litigant to proceed without the prepayment of the required filing fee upon a showing of indigence. Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1995). This Court follows the two-prong test set forth in Roman v.Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990), to evaluate Plaintiff’s Motion and Complaint. First, “the district court evaluates a litigant’s financial status and determines whether (she) is eligible to proceed . . . under § 1915(a).” Id. at 194 n. 1. Second, “the court assesses the complaint under [§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] to determine whether it is frivolous.” Id.
After reviewing Plaintiff’s application, this Court finds that Plaintiff is unemployed, earns around $1500.00 a year, and does not own any valuable property. Plaintiff therefore qualifies as indigent, and it is ORDERED the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis isGRANTED.
Page 3
B. Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, must be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A claim is frivolous when “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989), or the claims describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id.
at 328. Under this standard, a claim is appropriately dismissed as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the contentions made are clearly baseless. Deutsch, 67 F.3d at 1085.
In her two-page handwritten Complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege with specificity any facts that would support her claims of personal injury.[3]
Plaintiff seems to allege delusional scenarios wherein, for example, Plaintiff claims Defendant engaged in prostitution to “extort from judges.” Similar to claims Plaintiff has made in prior Complaints against other defendants, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is withholding her property and conspiring against her. Because Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint contains insufficient factual support and even the most liberal reading of her Complaint fails to support a meritorious legal theory for this action, we find that it is frivolous and
Page 4
warrants dismissal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSEDWITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is FURTHERED ORDERED that Plaintiff’s styled “motion,” submitted to this Court on October 28, 2003, is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of November, 2003, in consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and attached Complaint (Doc. No. 1), and one styled Motion, dated October 28, 2003 (Doc. No. 2), it isORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
3. Plaintiff’s one styled Motion is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Page 1