Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

NATHANIEL PAUL BELCHER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv211/RS-AK

MARY N. WILSON,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

Before me are the Complaint (Doc. 1) and Motion For Leave To Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 2). This case was filed within one week after another case filed by Plaintiff

alleging the same facts against the same defendant was dismissed as frivolous. See Case No.

5:10cv202-RS/AK. I find that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis should again be denied

and this case dismissed as frivolous.

The screening process under 28 U.S.C. §1915 applies to non-prisoner pro se litigants who

are proceeding in forma pauperis. Boyington v. Geo Group, Inc., 2009 WL 3157642 (M.D.

Fla.), citing Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C.

1915 apply to non-prisoners, even if fee assessment provisions do not). “In order to authorize a

litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must make two determinations: first, whether the

litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing this action; and second, whether the action is

frivolous or malicious.” Dycus v. Astrue, 2009 WL 47497, at *1 (S.D.Ala.2009). An application

to proceed in forma pauperis may be denied if the plaintiff either fails to satisfy the poverty

requirement or if plaintiff's claim is frivolous. Martinez v. Kristi Kleaner's Inc., 364 F.3d 1305,
Page 2 of 2

1306 (11th Cir.2004); see also Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir.1997) (stating

that a court ‘may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the

action is frivolous or malicious).

A claim is frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 317 (1989) (applying section 1915). This circuit has defined a frivolous

appeal under section 1915 as being one “ ‘without arguable merit.’ “ Harris v. Menendez, 817

F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir.1987) (quoting Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). “

‘Arguable means capable of being convincingly argued.’ “Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168,

1170 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740 n. 5); see Clark v. State

of Ga. Pardons and Paroles Bd, 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir. 1990) (lawsuit is frivolous if the

plaintiff's chances of ultimate success are slight); see also Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 127

(11th Cir.1996) (stating that “[f]actual allegations are frivolous for purpose of [28 U.S.C.]

1915(d) when they are ‘clearly baseless;’ legal theories are frivolous when they are ‘indisputably

meritless.’ ”) (citations omitted).

The complaint is brought against a private person for “perjury” that resulted in Plaintiff

having to move. As with the previously dismissed case, Plaintiff has failed to adequately state

any claims for relief. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied.

2. This case is dismissed as frivolous. 

ORDERED on August 16, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 5:10-cv-00202-RS -AK