Hale v. United States of America

District of Columbia

Hale v. United States of America

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 19, 2009

DocketCivil Action No. 2009-1125

StatusPublished

This text of Hale v. United States of America (Hale v. United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hale v. United States of America, (D.D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

JUN 1 9 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT mark U_S_ Dismct and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bar'\krupt¢y Courts

LEROY J . HALE, ) Plaintiff, § v_ § civil A¢cion No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint as frivolous.

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). ln Nez`tzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), 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. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Plaintiff alleges that he has been wrongly held in custody for 50 years, wrongly been

made to urinate thousands of times, subjected to medical malpractice and carpel tunnel

syndrome, and "was not able to have marines, draft, army, home, credit & jobs of [his] qualifications." Compl. at l. He asks for "89O thousand zillion court actions and court orders," among other remedies. Id. at 4. Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, it appears that its factual contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For these reasons, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. wm

llnited Sta(:s,D}strict Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

JUN 1 9 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT mark U_S_ Dismct and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bar'\krupt¢y Courts

LEROY J . HALE, ) Plaintiff, § v_ § civil A¢cion No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint as frivolous.

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). ln Nez`tzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), 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. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Plaintiff alleges that he has been wrongly held in custody for 50 years, wrongly been

made to urinate thousands of times, subjected to medical malpractice and carpel tunnel

syndrome, and "was not able to have marines, draft, army, home, credit & jobs of [his] qualifications." Compl. at l. He asks for "89O thousand zillion court actions and court orders," among other remedies. Id. at 4. Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, it appears that its factual contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For these reasons, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. wm

llnited Sta(:s,D}strict Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hale v. United States of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-united-states-of-america-dcd-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack