Gaston v. Pinellas County State Court

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 31, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-1266
• Status: Published

Opinion

§;j§:~»»

JUL `. l L~‘.U.Z

IJNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT C<>'efk~ U-S»,‘l*§;f*<;* 2 S'r»yjjf“°*§)¥ ourts tortzw. _ wsm .or colum 1a FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA

LORENZIE GASTON, ) Plaintiff, § v_ § civil A¢u@n No. PINELLAS COUNTY STATE COURT, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiffs 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. §§ l9l5(e)(l)(B), l9l5A(b)(l). In Neilzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (l989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has 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. Id. at 328. The trial 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. Herrzarzdez, 504

U.s. 25, 33 (1992).

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. 5l9, 520 (1972). Having reviewed the plaintiffs complaint, the Court concludes that what factual contentions are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the

complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A (b)(l).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

UniteclTttes District Judge