IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION GENE EDWARD SCOTT II PLAINTIFF V. 4:22CV00475 JM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Doris Washington, Executive Director DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Gene Edward Scott II brings this pro se civil rights action under

asking to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1 & 2). The Eighth Circuit has instructed that the decision of whether a complaint is frivolous or malicious precedes the decision of whether to grant in forma pauperis status and whether to order service of process. See Carney v. Houston,

(8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gentile v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections,

, 217 (8th Cir. 1993). “If the complaint is frivolous or malicious, the district court should dismiss it out of hand.” /d. A complaint if frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in either law of fact. See Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). In this case, Mr. Scott, a resident of Arizona, seeks $67 billion for himself and $72 million for the City of Holly Grove, to return soybean farming to the City. (Doc. 2 at 4-5). Mr. Scott has failed to state a claim that has any basis in law or in fact. See Martin v. Sargent,

(8th Cir. 1985). The Court finds that allowing Mr. Scott to amend his complaint would be futile. Mr. Scott’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED. Mr. Scott’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of May, 2022. eh.