IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 23, 2007
JOEL MEANS, INMATE #581357, PLAINTIFF,
DAIV DONKEN, DOROTHY DRIVER, DOLSE LONG, DR. VASVERHENE, AND NARSEE THE NURSE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Chester Mental Health Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will first perform a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that --
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal --
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915(e)(2); this action is legally frivolous and thus subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff's barely legible-complaint is a jumble of words that taken together are incomprehensible. He states, "like I said Dector Daiv Donken look cazzy [illegible] more sure than FBI no about statement day have the [illegible] lieing about my conder nurse and doctor call me." At another place in the complaint he states, "Daiv Donken have me jump on by staff nurse and doctor to lie about [illegible] my mother," then "day trying to kill Joel Means."
In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Court noted that when a district court considers an in forma pauperis motion, it has the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. . . . [such as] claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.
Id. at 327-28. The Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff's perceived injustices, but as it stands, the complaint does not state any claims upon which litigation can commence, or upon which a defendant could form an answer, and in fact, the claims (those that are legible, at least) appear irrational and unbelievable.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED as frivolous. The dismissal is without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Phil Gilbert U. S. District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.