Long v. Sarles

-----~--------------------------

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 11 2011 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia

KAREN LONG, ) )

Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) )

Civil Action No. 11 0395 RICHARD SARLES, ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of Court received 51 pro se complaints from plaintiff, each accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis, on December 29,2010. The Court consolidates these filings for purposes of this Memorandum Opinion.

The court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. !d. at 328. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

The court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to forn1al pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 u.s. 519, 520 (1972). The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaints and finds each to be incomprehensible. Some contain nothing more than disjointed phrases; others demand millions of dollars in damages for claims that the Court cannot discern. Accordingly, the Court deems the complaint frivolous and will dismiss this action under 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(2)(B)(i).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United States District Judg DATE:U. ~ ADjl