UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANGEL KNIGHT, Plaintiff, 19-CV-10776 (CM) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL CARL BARRACK OBAMA, Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action claiming that Defendant “Carl Barrack Obama” breached a contract. By order dated December 6, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon,

(2d Cir. 2007). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills,

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (holding that “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co.,

(2d Cir. 1998) (“[A]n action is ‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). BACKGROUND Plaintiff asserts the following: As a wealthy girl [I] was offered by Architect Carl Barrack Obama to invest in 911 Memorial to be built . . . [o]nce the towers and subway station and Real Estate property and small business architecture was finish[ed]. I did not receive my legal 30% of all Real Estate property and ticket fees as a breach of my contract. It was [a] video taped verbal agreement and (3) apartments of all Real Estate property and 30% of all business endorsed and built and open for business. I did not receive a dime. (ECF No. 2, at 5.) Plaintiff’s injuries consist of: “Police Brutality, Gun shot wounds Stalking Illegal administ[ration] of drugs, departures, Jail Har[ ]assment.” (ECF No. 2, at 6.) For relief, she seeks her “original Contract and [her] 30% as the contract stated.” (Id.) DISCUSSION Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman,

, Plaintiff’s claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which she can rely. See Denton,

; Livingston,

. District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,

(2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,

(2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses the action as frivolous. See

(e)(2)(B)(i). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket, mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, and note service on the docket. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as frivolous under

(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2019 , New York, New York huh. hich Chief United States District Judge