UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED MAR 22 2021 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia ANGELIA DENISE SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-0700 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the Plaintiff’s pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the statute governing in forma

pauperis proceedings, the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the

action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(e)(2). Here, having reviewed the complaint carefully, the Court concludes that it

cannot discern what claim or claims Plaintiff intends to bring. Because Plaintiff’s complaint

lacks coherence and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court is required

to dismiss it under

(e)(2); see also Gwinnell-Kennedy v. U.S. Gov’t Judiciary,

No. 09-cv-737,

, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2009) (summarily dismissing

complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because it was “incoherent”); McGuire v. U.S. Dist. Court, No. 10-

cv-696,

, at *1 (D.D.C. May 4, 2010) (summarily dismissing complaint under

§ 1915(e)(2) because it was “largely incoherent and nonsensical”); cf. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) (“[A] complaint, containing . . . . factual allegations and legal conclusions .

. . lack[ing] an arguable basis either in law or in fact” shall be dismissed).

1 Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. See

(e)(2). An Order

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

/s/ AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge DATE: March 22, 2021

2