IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION RAY ADAMS PLAINTIFF

No. 3:20-cv-39-DPM U.S.A. DEFENDANT

ORDER 1. The Court has been delayed by the press of other business in addressing Adams’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screening his complaint.

(e)(2). His motion, Ne 1, is granted. He can’t afford the filing fee. 2. On screening, the Court does not understand his complaint. He seeks relief against the United States because “Entities & Powers were unreasonably divided & used against original Houses, clans, and affiliations.” Ne 2 □□ □□ This conclusion. The law requires particular facts that support a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). The Court will therefore dismiss his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. If Adams wants to file an amended complaint with particulars about who allegedly violated his rights, when it occurred, and how, he may do so by 31 March 2020.

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3 rfath ROAD