GILL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 4/7/2010. (ls, )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

APR 1 4 2010
Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia

ANDREW GILL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No.

10 0588

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se civil 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)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court held that trial courts have 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. !d. at 328. The 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).
In a lengthy and rambling complaint, plaintiff alleges that he has been denied a proper

public education, illegally arrested and incarcerated, sexually harassed, and stalked by police.

Review of the attachments to the complaint sheds no light on the substance of his claims. Plaintiff demands various relief, including an award of monetary damages and the dismissal of all criminal charges brought against him in the District of Columbia, Missouri and Florida. 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). Nevertheless, a review ofplaintiffs complaint reveals that its few 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 appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.