UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

SHAWNNETTA SMALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:22-CV-735-SEP ) ATLANTA POLICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiff Shawnnetta Small’s Civil Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. See Docs. [1], [2]. Upon consideration of the motion and the financial information provided therein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee and grants the motion, Doc. [2]. For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint is dismissed. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s Complaint and attached documents identify numerous defendants, including “Atlanta Police,” “Psychic Sources,” “Keen.com,” “Pyramid of Enlightenment,” the State of Missouri, “Orange Blossom,” the Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center, “California Psychics,” and several individuals. Docs. [1], [1-1]-[1-3]. Plaintiff appears to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. She indicates that her claims involve alleged violations of certain provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code. Plaintiff sets forth her allegations in nearly 20 single-spaced, typewritten pages, which contain long, nonsensical narratives concerning numerous unrelated matters. For example, Plaintiff alleges that her phone was tapped, that she was dependent on psychics, and that some defendants told the psychics to tell her terrible things. She also claims that some defendants were involved in subjecting her to sexual abuse and sex trafficking, defrauding her of millions of dollars, and abusing her daughter. And she alleges that her phone and computer were tapped, that she was surveilled and threatened through her television set, that cameras followed her down the street and made videos of her, and that she was threatened with machine guns. The Complaint continues in this manner. As relief, Plaintiff seeks $1.5 trillion to compensate her for “brain injury physical injury for assault emotional distress assault [illegible] and alienation of affection from family [illegible].” Doc. [1] at 6. LEGAL STANDARD This Court is required to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See

(e). This Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). The term “‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”

While federal courts should not dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts alleged are merely unlikely, the court can properly dismiss such an action if the allegations in the complaint are found to be “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (citing Neitzke,

). Allegations are clearly baseless if they are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.”

DISCUSSION Having reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court can discern no plausible claim for relief. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible manner. Even pro se plaintiffs are required to set out their alleged claims and supporting facts in a simple, concise, and direct manner. See McNeil v. United States,

(1993). Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff’s allegations and her prayer for relief are clearly baseless because they “rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.” Denton,

. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Complaint because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is frivolous. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. [2], is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 19" day of October, 2022.

SARAH E. PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE