SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division

Case Number: 20-21442-CIV-MORENO

ELVIN GENAO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDWIN GENAO, E. DIAZ, and V. DIAZ,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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. 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)(i) where the claims rest on an indisputably meritless legal theory or are comprised of factual contentions that are clearly baseless.

. 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. /d. 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). The Court evaluated the Plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint mindful of these principles. The complaint includes no allegations; it only refers the Court to attached documentation. (See D.E. 1.) The attached documentation—which includes several pages of an email and several one-page “criminal” complaints listing numerous offenses without any factual allegations—is indecipherable. (See D.E. 1-1.) The Court thus finds that the complaint does not state a federal cause of action and is frivolous, as that term is understood under

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

. Furthermore, the complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to comply with the one-claim-per-count rule. In short, after reviewing the complaint and the attached documentation, the Court concludes that the complaint is indisputably meritless. Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to close the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6" of April 2020. facie bp Maer FEDERICOA.MORENO) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Elvin Genao

St., Apt. 140 New York, NY 10027 Pro Se _2-