Summary
This United States District Court order grants the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and summarily dismisses her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court finds the allegations frivolous and lacking factual plausibility, noting they mirror claims previously dismissed in related litigation. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on any appeal is denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint is frivolous and subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)
- Whether the plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis
Holdings
- The complaint is frivolous and is summarily dismissed.
- Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Key quotations
“District courts are required by statute to dismiss an action filed IFP if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608‑09 (6th Cir. 2007).” (at 1)
“A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” or describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989).” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleges that after being subpoenaed as a federal witness she was stalked by the named defendants. The court found the allegations implausible, lacking factual support, and not sufficient to state a claim.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the pro se complaint on November 4, 2024 in the Southern District of New York; the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan on March 12, 2025. The court granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and then summarily dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).