This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. Notwithstanding the Court's obligation to construe a. pro se complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court has “hot only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaints
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
clearly baseless" Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
According to the plaintiff, by tendering a “financial instrument... for the performance of certain obligations to be completed upon its receipt and negotiation, ” Compl. ¶ 1, to which the United States of America did not timely respond, the United States is now obligated either to return the original financial instrument or, in the alternative, to pay him $11, 000, 000.00 plus interest. Id.
¶ 7. This obligation somehow has arisen from the plaintiffs conviction in and sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. See id., Ex. (excerpt from judgment and commitment order); see also United States v. Taylor, 196 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 1999) (affirming criminal convictions and 30-year prison sentence). Wholly absent from the plaintiffs pleading is any credible legal theory to support his demand for compensation.
This complaint is frivolous and it must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(1)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1). An Order consistent with this ...