October 25, 2013
DAVONTA MELVIN ROWLAND, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant.
This matter comes before the court on review of the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauper is and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.
The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nevertheless, the Court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(1)(B), 1915A(b)(l). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 328. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Plaintiff alleges that employees of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia were "very 'unprofessional'" and are "'guilty' of 'gender discrimination.'" Compl. at 1. Apparently dissatisfied with a decision rendered by the Superior Court, plaintiff "sue[s] judges, courts jails, airports, attorneys 'other' attorneys 'whatever, '" and he "demands ($12, 000, 000, 000.00) damages." Id. Having reviewed the plaintiffs complaint, the Court concludes that what factual contentions are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. The complaint is frivolous and it must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)(B).
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.