Opinion
23-CV-5429 (LTS)
07-27-2023
AL MOSHIR, Plaintiff, v. INDEPENDENT AND GLOBALIST POLITICAL PARTY OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff brings this action pro se. The complaint is largely illegible, and it is unclear who he sues or what claims he wishes to assert. By order dated June 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees.
The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (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., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (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). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's complaint is handwritten, and he has written illegibly in the margins of the top, bottom, and sides of the form complaint. In response to a question about the basis for his case, Plaintiff writes:
Refer to (and/or as) have to be referred to, the; - numbers (#s): (1), (2), and (3) of the page one (1) of this form of as: below: “against”! (as well as/and/+) above (above) the: “against.”!!(ECF 1 at 2.) The information on page one (and the remainder of the complaint) is similarly indecipherable. Plaintiff does not specify the relief that he seeks.
DISCUSSION
Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 475, Plaintiff's claims rise to the level of the irrational, and the complaint does not suggest any legal theory on which he can rely, see Denton, 504 U.S. at 33; Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437. Plaintiff's complaint does not provide information about who he intends to sue or why. He does not include facts about what happened or what relief he seeks from the Court. Accordingly, a finding of frivolousness is warranted. See Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437.
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, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action.
SO ORDERED.