Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-06264/USCOURTS-ca10-09-06264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AT&T
Appellee
Victoria A. Phillips
Appellant

Document Text:

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 17, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIA A. PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AT&T,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-6264

(D.C. No. 09-CV-00368-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Victoria Phillips, appearing pro se, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of her complaint without prejudice for failure to effect

service. 1 R. 46. The complaint alleges that, in June 2008, Ms. Phillips received

a phone bill from AT&T with an improper $9.99 charge. 1 R. 3. Dissatisfied

with AT&T’s handling of the matter, she filed this complaint seeking $45 million

Appellate Case: 09-6264 Document: 01018368220 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 1 
- 2 -

in damages on the theories of identity theft, fraud upon her account, wire fraud

and mail fraud. 1 R. 3. A magistrate judge granted IFP status, 1 R. 16, but then

the district court, after ordering the Plaintiff to show cause, 1 R. 39, dismissed the

complaint for inadequate proof of service, 1 R. 46. Given the grant of IFP status,

the district court was responsible for ensuring service. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333

F.3d 1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003).

However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may dismiss an action

or an appeal that is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted. This is just such a case. The factual allegations contained in the

complaint stray into the fanciful and delusional, see Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and it is certain that the complaint lacks facial plausibility

warranting the relief requested, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-6264 Document: 01018368220 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Page: 2