McKeeman v. Bush

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 262009
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
RITA MORRIS McKEEMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
) 09 1624
GEORGE W. BUSH, etal., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the
complaint.
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)(2)(B)(i). 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. [d. at 328. The 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 she "was given a Biological Weapon infectus [sic] [illegible] #4 to
Try to Kill me, and also we went to war on these false claims." Compi. at 21 (page number
designated by the Court). The nature of these "false claims" is unclear, as neither the complaint
nor its may attachments sets forth her factual allegations. Plaintiff demands damages in the
"amount of 1 000,000.00 million dollars." Id.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). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, it appears that its few factual
contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and
must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(e)(2)(B)(i).
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
United States District Judge