* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 22, 2005

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LENA THOMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MUSKOGEE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; MUSKOGEE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MUSKOGEE FBI; THE FBI; AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC.; NBC, INC.; CBS; THE FOX NETWORK; THE WB; DOES 1 THROUGH 1000,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 05-7101 (D.C. No. 05-CV-265-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before McCONNELL , ANDERSON , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff-appellant Lena Thomas is appealing the or der entered by the district court dismissing her civil rights complaint. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. After setting forth “[a] representative sample of t he bizarre nature of the allegations of Plaintiff’s [42 U.S.C. § 1983] compl aint,” R., Doc. 11 at 4, the district court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as f rivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), concluding that “[t]he complain t is devoid of any factual data linking Defendants to Plaintiff’s perceived persecu tion, much less to any recognizable legal theory of recovery. Plaintiff’s complaint is nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric,” id. at 5. Having reviewed the allegations in the documents that plaintiff has submitted to the distr ict court and this court, we agree with the district court’s assessment of plaintiff’s claims, and we see no abuse of discretion by the district court in dismis sing plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Conkle v. Potter , 352 F.3d 1333, 1335 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003) (“This court reviews friv olousness dismissals [under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] for an abuse of discretion.”). In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that “the defen dants or some of the defendants in this case, launched a conspiracy of e vil against plaintiff so great-3-

that it would top many of the greatest atrocities e ver committed against another human being in the history of man-kind.” R., Doc. 1 at 8. Unfortunately, the complaint never states in intelligible fashion whatany defendant actually did. Under the fact-pleading approach of the Federal Rul es of Civil Procedure, to state a claim, a complaint must allege facts with suffici ent specificity that the defendants can know what they are accused of, and b e able to respond. The causes of action set forth by the plaintiff are rep lete with generalized charges of slander, burglary, theft, installation of mechanica l devices into plaintiff’s tooth, interference with her book sales, computer sabotage , and disruption of her relations with persons on the internet, among otherthings, but it does not make clear what any of the defendants actually said abou t her or did to her. In accordance with § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), we are requi red to dismiss an in forma pauperis appeal if we determine that the appe al is frivolous, and an appeal is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in eith er law or fact.” Thompson v. Gibson , 289 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002). Applying t his standard here, we conclude that this appeal is frivolous, as plaintif f has failed to set forth any specific, nonconclusory arguments explaining why th e district court’s rulings are erroneous. In addition, while we construe pro se p leadings liberally, see Haines
v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), this rule is of no avai l here because plaintiff-4-

has failed to set forth an understandable statementof the specific facts which support her legal claims. Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal.

Entered for the Court

Michael W. McConnell Circuit Judge