Court Opinion

ID: 2660703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-03 05:05:59.941471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:21.835222
License: Public Domain

FILED

UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT coURT MAY ~ 2 29?3
oLUMBIA cr :<, _ » ~
FOR THE DISTRICT OF C Coiizrrts ii)\\§£hg/;tig;;rtr&; B‘;,z(rlk,j-,_,ptay
`  ”'  .*.'nzl)i;y

MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH, )
)

Piainriff, )

)

v ) civil A¢ri@n N@_ 13-0371

)

CHARLIE LYoNs, er az., )
)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiffs application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint

will be dismissed.

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). This complaint is so incoherently written that the Court cannot identify
factual allegations which might underlie a viable legal claim. At most, this complaint appears to
either "recit[e] bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulate[]
events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind." Crisaji v. Holland, 655 F.Zd 1305, 1307-08
(D.C. Cir. 1981). Furtherrnore, the Court is "without power to entertain claims otherwise within
[its] jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, . .
. wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous." Hagcms v. Lavz'irze, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

This complaint is frivolous and it must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 191 S(e)(I)(B)(i),

1915A(b)(l). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

4‘%

l Unite Stat i `tJu e
DATE;  M/

w )W’B