GERALD
v.
SAINT GERAD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint, which attempted to bring a civil suit under a criminal statute, was frivolous and lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed an in forma pauperis complaint alleging claims against car salesmen under a criminal statute. The court reviewed t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Malicious Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. For the reasons explained below, this case is DISMISSED for being frivolous. In his in forma pauperis complaint, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, appears to allege claims against two car salesmen under a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)@), 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, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (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. /d. at 327. In Neitzke, the Supreme Court provided several examples of frivolous or malicious claims. Where the defendant
is 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. Jd. at 327. The Court notes that a pro se plaintiff must be given greater leeway in pleading his or her complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Mindful of this principle, however, the Court finds that the complaint still does not state a valid federal cause of action and fails to comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it does not contain “an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Plaintiff proceeds to bring a civil suit under a criminal statute.
Accordingly, after reviewing the entire complaint, the Court concludes that the claims are frivolous and indisputably meritless. It is therefore ADJUDGED that the case is DISMISSED, and all pending motions DENIED as MOOT. The case is CLOSED.
pf DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 2 O of December 2019.
dled
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counse of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989)