The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge:
Before the Court is plaintiff's pro se complaint (Doc. 1) and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). In the complaint, plaintiff lists a number of organizations, whom plaintiff presumably attempts to name as defendants, without articulating any particular claims against each of them. In the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff lists "American/Water/Ameren/CTP" as defendants.
Plaintiff's handwritten, two- page complaint seeks relief from a number of organizations, for what is broadly construed by this Court as alleged bank fraud, tax refund theft, record fraud, and credit fraud. Although it is not clear why plaintiff is seeking relief, it appears to have something to do with collection of a debt, although it is unclear whether that collection was by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education or another governmental office. Plaintiff submitted nearly 300 pages of exhibits, consisting of, inter alia, wage garnishment documents apparently related to delinquent student loans, past due water, utility, and phone bills, letters from the Social Security Administration and other documents regarding plaintiff's application for benefits, letters from the State of Illinois Department of Human Services regarding denial of assistance, hospital records, medical bills, credit reports, tax documents, resumes, and Court documents from previous proceedings before this Court. The Court documents plaintiff submitted reveal that plaintiff previously filed complaints with this Court in Case No. 07-CV-711-WDS, which the Court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court finds itself in the same predicament it was when considering plaintiff's earlier case, and thus, even under a liberal pleading standard, the Court FINDS that the plaintiff's claims are so undeveloped that they fail to state a claim. Without more, plaintiff's complaint and exhibits are simply a hodge podge of complaints against various entities and individuals, unrelated in time, scope or manner, for unclear actions taken at unspecified times. 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 that this action is legally frivolous and thus summarily DISMISSED, as plaintiff has failed to state a federal cause of action which would give this Court jurisdiction over this action. In light of the dismissal of the complaint, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is DENIED.
DISTRICT JUDGE WILLIAM D. STIEHL
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...