UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED MAY 3 1 2011 Antonio Colbert, ) Clerk, u.s. District & Bankruptcy Coutts for the District ot Columbia ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 11 1014 Hamilton County Courthouse, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to

(e), the Court is

required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous.

28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues the county courthouse in Cincinnati, Ohio.

In a single-paragraph complaint, plaintiff alleges that "for a 12 year period," defendant "robbed

[him] of [his] 5th Amendment right' Due Process'! Enduring threw [sic] such hardship and

malicious persecution." He seeks $60 million "in restitution."

A complaint may be dismissed under

(e)(2) as frivolous when it

describes fantastic or delusional scenarios, contains "fanciful factual aUegation[s]," Neitzke v.

Williams,

(1989), or lacks "an arguable basis in law and fact." Brandon v.

District of Columbia Bd. of Parole,

(D.C. Cir. 1984). This complaint qualifies

for such treatment. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/" United States District Judge DATE: May; D ,2011

/ (l /