Gray v. Trump

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jennifer Ann Gray, No. CV-20-00079-TUC-DCB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Donald J Trump, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On February 24, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Doc. 2.) On February 26, 2020, she filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). In both she sues Defendants Donald Trump, Christopher Wray, Michael Pompeo, individually and in their official capacities, and the State Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations. She alleges that the Defendants have targeted her as an accomplice to a scheme orchestrated by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and other unknown persons. The Defendants have allegedly ignored her constitutional rights by conducting unlawful wiretaps, surveillance, instructed judges to rule against her, and instructed the State Bar of Arizona not to assist her, etc. 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the Court must dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the action or complaint is “frivolous or malicious.” Frivolousness exists if the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any arguable construction of law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

1 Dismissal under § 1915(e) is justified for legal frivolousness where a complaint is based on "an indisputably meritless legal theory...[such as] claims against which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit, and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist...." Id. at 327.When evaluating claims under this standard, the Court “is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the [P]laintiff’s allegations.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

8 Here, the Court dismisses the action as factually frivolous. “[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’” Id. at 32-33 (citations omitted). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. at 33. Plaintiff provides no facts to support her claims of a widespread conspiracy among the President, the Director of the FBI, or other federal agencies to deprive her of her constitutional rights.

15 Her First Amended Complaint and this action are dismissed without leave to amend.

16 The Court finds that the Plaintiff is not indigent. Her parents are paying her $1,300.00 mortgage which alone amounts to $15,600 a year in support. She reports that they also pay for her food and utilities. The U.S Poverty Guidelines for 2020 for a single person is $12,760 a year and income eligibility for food stamps in Arizona is 130% of the poverty guideline or $1,354. She exceeds both of these indigency benchmarks.

21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED that the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Costs and Fees (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

24 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is || DISMISSED without leave to amend, and the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

3 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2020.

SS SY ' Honorabje David C. But 8 United States District Judge _3-