Harless v. Edmonson et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER the referral of this matter to the Magistrate Judge is WITHDRAWN and, as further addressed herein; directing that the plaintiff's 2 Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and denying as moot the 1 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 1/4/2017. (cc: plaintiff)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
DAVID S. HARLESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-12413
ROOT EDMONSON, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 21, 2016, the plaintiff, David S. Harless, proceeding pro se, filed
a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 2] and an Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [ECF No. 1]. The matter was initially referred
to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge for submission
of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). For reasons appearing to the court, the referral of this matter to the
Magistrate Judge is WITHDRAWN and, as further addressed herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), because the plaintiff is seeking to
proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, the court is obliged to screen the case
to determine if the Complaint is (i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A “frivolous” claim is defined
as one which is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, and lacks “an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992);
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).1 This review is conducted before
service of process or any responsive pleading from a defendant is required.
DISCUSSION
The Complaint and additional documentation filed by the plaintiff contain
incoherent, fanciful ramblings which lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Thus,
the court FINDS that the plaintiff’s filings are clearly baseless and patently frivolous.
“A complaint such as this one that describes fantastic or delusional scenarios is
subject to immediate dismissal.” See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Denton, 504
U.S. at 33 (holding that a court need not accept irrational and wholly incredible
allegations whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to rebut
them). Accordingly, the court FINDS that dismissal of this civil action under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is appropriate.
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s
Complaint [ECF No. 2] is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and
Costs [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot.
At the time of the decisions in Denton and Neitzke, the operative statutory provision was found in
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), not section 1915(e). Nevertheless, the analysis thereunder remains the same.
1
2
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff.
ENTER:
3
January 4, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?