• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEWESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEVEN LEE CRAIG,))Plaintiff,))vs.)Case No. CIV-09-0343-F)THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,))Defendant.)
ORDER
Plaintiff appears
 pro se
in this action, and his pleadings are liberally construed.Plaintiff has been granted leave to appear
in forma pauperis
.The court has conducted a careful, initial review of the complaint, filedMarch 31, 2009. (Complaint, doc. no. 1.) Having done so, the court finds that thecomplaint fails to give notice of the type of relief sought or the basis for any suchrelief. The court further finds that the complaint is incomprehensible and frivolous.The court concludes that the ends of justice require dismissal of the complaint
sua sponte
.
See
, 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Lowery v. Utah, 2008 WL 5077721(10th Cir. 2008) (“Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court is required to dismiss an IFPaction if it determines that the action is ‘frivolous or malicious”), unpublisheddecision cited pursuant to the requirements of Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1;
and see
Kanev. Lancaster County Department of Corrections, 960 F. Supp. 219, 221 (D. Neb. 1997)(discussing whether § 1915(e)(2) applies to non-prisoner complaints; noting that evenbefore the 1996 amendments, the type of pre-answer screening provided for in§1915(e)(2) had long been a part of the
in forma pauperis
process for prisoner andnon-prisoner cases alike).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...