UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division Case Number: 19-23366-CIV-MORENO WILBERT WHIPPLE, Plaintiff, VS. VETERAN AFFAIRS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, and LAVAN NEIDENBERG, Defendants. / ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. For the reasons set forth below, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Additionally, all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. In his in forma pauperis complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover for being exposed to asbestos, for a slip and fall from his walker, and for not receiving benefits from the Veteran’s Affairs, which were awarded in 1983. Under

(e)(2)(B)(i), a court “shall dismiss the [in forma pauperis action] at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious." According to the United States Supreme Court, a complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) (discussing dismissals under former section 1915(d), which contained the same language as current section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). A court may dismiss claims under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(Gi) where the claims rest on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or are comprised of factual contentions that are clearly baseless. /d. at 327. In Neitzke, the Supreme Court provided several examples of frivolous or malicious claims. Where the defendant is clearly immune from suit, or where the plaintiff alleges infringement of a legal interest which obviously does not exist, then the claim is founded on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Jd. at 327. Claims detailing fantastic or delusional scenarios fit into the factually baseless category.

. Finally, this Court also notes that a pro se plaintiff must be given greater leeway in pleading his complaint. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). Mindful of these principles, the Court proceeds to evaluate Plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint. Although this Complaint checks the box that Plaintiff is pursuing a Bivens claim, the Court cannot discern one from the scant factual allegations in the Complaint. There are no factual allegations supporting a claim that a federal officer, acting under the color of federal authority, violated the U.S. Constitution. The Complaint also fails to comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous under

(e)(2)(B)(i) because it does not contain "an arguable basis in law or in fact." Neitzke,

. After reviewing the entire complaint, the Court concludes that the claims are indisputably meritless. Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. This case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this Zt of August 2019. =

FEDERICO A. MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel and Parties of Record