IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

STEVEN LEE CRAIG,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

Case No. CIV-09-0343-F

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, filed March 31, 2009. (Complaint, doc. no. 1.) Having done so, the court finds that the complaint fails to give notice of the type of relief sought or the basis for any such relief. 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a court is required to dismiss an IFP action if it determines that the action is ‘frivolous or malicious”), unpublished decision cited pursuant to the requirements of Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1; and see Kane v. Lancaster County Department of Corrections, 960 F. Supp. 219, 221 (D.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 even before 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 and non-prisoner cases alike).

Accordingly, in the careful exercise of its discretion, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s “Application to File Notice of

Constitutional Challenge to a Statute,” filed March 31, 2009, is STRICKEN as moot. If plaintiff wishes to seek leave to amend, he may do so by filing a motion on or before April 17, 2009. The motion must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with the local rules of this court. Any such motion must attach, as an exhibit, a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint. Failure to timely comply with any rules or with this order will likely result in denial of the motion for leave to amend. If leave to amend is not sought or is not granted, judgment will then be entered in accordance with this order. Dated this 3rd day of April, 2009.

09-0343p001.wpd

-2-