2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-8-2006

Hines v. USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-4055

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Hines v. USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1618.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1618
DPS-73 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-4055 

________________

SHAWN R. HINES,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; JOHN DOE; 

JANE DOE; ABC CORP.; XYZ CORP., said 

names being fictitious and representing unknown

potentially liable parties

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-03523)

District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden

__________________________

Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 8, 2005

Before: ROTH, FUENTES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed February 8, 2006)

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Shawn R. Hines, a resident of West Orange, New Jersey, filed an in
 Although we require district courts to grant a motion for leave to proceed in forma 1

pauperis under section 1915(a) based on economic criteria alone before dismissing a

complaint as frivolous, Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1976), we conclude that

such a grant is implied in the District Court’s order. We note that Hines’ monthly

expenses exceed his disability income.

2

forma pauperis complaint in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

against the United States of America and others, alleging a violation of his civil rights

under domestic and international law. Hines claimed that the United States government

and others have tortured him with poisonous gas for the last 12 years whenever he tried to

study toward his career goals. He sought $10,000,000 in money damages and injunctive

relief. The District Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1

Our Clerk granted Hines leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous. The federal in forma pauperis statute

permits an indigent litigant to take an appeal without paying the administrative costs of

proceeding with the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The statute protects against abuses of this

privilege by allowing the appeals court to dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992). We thus have the “unusual power to pierce the veil

of the [underlying] complaint’s factual allegations, id. at 32 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)), and dismiss the appeal where those factual allegations are

delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible, id. at 33. We have carefully reviewed Hines’

complaint and conclude that it is clearly baseless for those very reasons.

We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).