IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CHARLOTTE MARTIN PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-00397-LPR

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff Charlotte Martin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.1 She reports living on a combination of social security income and veteran’s benefits.2 The law requires that I screen the Complaint.3 Although she names only the Department of Veterans Affairs as a defendant, Ms. Martin alleges a wide-ranging and long-term conspiracy involving her family, her associates, her landlord, her doctors, police, and emergency responders.4 An action is frivolous if its allegations are “fanciful, fantastic, [or] delusional,” its “factual contentions are clearly baseless,” or it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”5 A “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible . . . .”6 Ms. Martin’s claims fall into this category. Accordingly, her Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

1 See Martin-Trigona v. Stewart,

(8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (complaint can be filed if plaintiff qualifies by economic status under

(a)).

2 Pl.’s Mtn. for Leave to Proceed IFP, Doc. 1.

3

(e)(2).

4 Complaint, Doc. 2.

5 Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Nietzke v. Williams,

(1989).

6 Denton,

. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Ms. Martin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. 2. The Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.’ Dated this 7th day of July 2022.

+ LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(a)(3).