Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00042-KAJ Document 13 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SHERRY E. WASHINGTON, )
A Plaintiff, )
v. g Civ. No. 06-42-KAJ
THE UNITED STATES OF g
AMERICA, its officials or )
agencies, )
Defendant. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Sherry E. Washington ("Washington") filed this action against the United States
of America, its officials or agencies. (D.I. 3.) She appears pro se and was granted in
forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.|. 6.) The original complaint
was screened and dismissed with leave to amend. (D.I. 7.) Washington then filed a
first amended complaint and supplement which I will now review and screen.
For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. THE COMPLAINT
The complaint is basically unintelligible, and it is unclear what type of suit
Washington attempts to bring. At various times she refers to the city police, the mayor,
the Delaware Violent Crime Compensation Board, and employees from this Court’s
C|erk’s Office. She refers to discrimination, slander, and photocopy tampering.
Washington asks for "pain and suffering monetary equity and pecuniary."

Case 1 :06-cv-00042-KAJ Document 13 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
ll. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a litigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides for
dismissal under certain circumstances. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides that the Court
may dismiss a complaint, at any time, if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it "Iacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact." Neitzke v. VW/liams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The Court must "accept as true factual allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom." Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65
(3d Cir. 1996)(citing Ho/der v. City ofAllentown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Additionally, pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by Iawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim
when "it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to re|ief."' Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521
(1972)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). inasmuch as plaintiff
proceeds pro se, I will construe the complaint liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972).
III. ANALYSIS
Initially, I note that Washington did not name any new defendants, and that the
United States of America, its officials or agencies were dismissed as parties in the first
screening order. She makes mention of other individuals, but the complaint is basically
devoid of coherent allegations.
2

Case 1 :06-cv-00042-KAJ Document 13 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 3 of 3
A pleading setting forth a claim for relief must contain a short and plain
statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
However, a court should dismiss a case, "if a pro se complaint is so confusing or
unintelligible that no party could possibly understand or reply to it." Cole v.
Commonwealth Federal, 1994 WL 618464, *1 (E.D.Pa.); (citing King v. Fayette County,
92 F.R.D. 457, 458 (W.D.Pa.1981); Brown v. Ca/ifano, 75 F.R.D. 497 (1977).
Here, Washington’s complaint is neither plain nor does it show that she is
entitled to relief. Washington was given an opportunity to correct the pleading errors
contained in her original complaint. Yet, even given the latitude accorded pro se
I pleadings, her new filings are incomprehensible. Accordingly, the amended complaint
and the supplement are dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IV. CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended complaint and
supplement (D.I. 11, 12) are DISMISSED without prejudice as legally and factually
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Amendment ofthe
complaint would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d
Cir. 2002); Bore//i v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d. Cir. 1976). The Clerk
of the Court is directed to close the case.
ti A _ 31/ Q/x._
U ITED STA ES {DIS ICT JUDGE
June 2006
Wilmington, Delaware
3