Provencio v. Biden

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Provencio v. Biden

Trial Court Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

KEVIN WAYNE PROVENCIO PLAINTIFF #269126

V. CASE NO. 4:24-cv-00112 JM

JOE BIDEN, President DEFENDANT

ORDER Kevin Wayne Provencio, an inmate at the Pulaski County Detention Facility, has filed a pro se complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. 1) and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). Because a district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case without a motion by either party for failure to state a claim, Provencio’s IFP (Doc. 4) is denied as moot and his complaint is dismissed without prejudice. See Smith v. Boyd,

945 F.2d 1041, 1043

(8th Cir. 1991). Provencio alleges that his human rights have been violated, that he is a victim of human trafficking, and that he is enslaved by the existence of his birth certificate. (Doc. 1 at 2–5). Provencio asks President Biden to “correct the wrong the country is doing . . . because of greed of the bonds of our birth certificates.” (Id. at 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.” Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 32-33

(1992); Nietzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 327-29

(1989). A “finding of frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton,

504 U.S. at 33

. Provencio’s allegations are fanciful and unfounded and are dismissed without prejudice. The Court recommend that this dismissal be counted as a strike within the meaning of

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(g). An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2024.

canto OE boa JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown