United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
M. MOODY JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before this Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis and Complaint. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous or
malicious, or it fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. The decision of whether a complaint is frivolous
or malicious precedes the decision of whether to grant in
forma pauperis status and whether to order service of
process. See Carney v. Houston 33 F.3d 893, 895
(8th Cir. 1994) (citing Gentile v. Missouri
Dept. Of Corrections, 986 F.2d 214 (8th Cir.
1993)). “If the complaint is frivolous or malicious,
the district court should dismiss it out of hand.”
complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in
either law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325-27 (1989). A claim is frivolous if it
“describ[es] fantastic or delusional scenarios, ”
the factual contentions are “clearly baseless, ”
or there is no rational basis in law. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-29 (1989). A court may
dismiss such a complaint before service of process and
without leave to amend. Christiansen v. Clarke, 147
F.3d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 1023 (1998). See also Higgins v.
Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir. 2001),
cert. denied sub nom. Early v. Harmon, 535 U.S. 1040
case, Plaintiff names the Office of Child Support Enforcement
as the Defendant.
there had been a(n) weird occurrence in terms of the
judiciality [sic] and payments pertaining to litigation
present within this court (this occurrence has actually been
reported to several institutions and has had statutes and
regulations enumerated ensuing its reception.....
This said occurrence had apparently been reported and
processed to/through an extremely well known institution. A
well trusted and third party credit reporting bureau that I
as well as many others seems to tend to for all of my/our
credit information related needs. The only issue being the
accuracy of the information present within what the
defendant, The Office of Child Support Enforcement, had
submitted to the trusted bureau. . . . I had been given the
chance to receive downright fraudulently processed
information about an account of mine, the account having been
opened 2 years ago, had accrued more debt than I had
anticipated accruing. The plaintiff, being me as well, had
also have seemed to have had an issue with the validity of
the results of an associated paternity test as well as my
current parental rights (Trevon Miller 60DR-16-4683) 28 U.S.C
1331, or the Office of Child Support Enforcement located at
322 S. Main St, suite 100 . The validity of the paternity
testing appears to appear quite vague to many of my council
and to be quite frank with you all I'm to the point of
being willing to provide currency [sic] for better answers
(Complaint, ECF No. 2).
pro se plaintiff must set forth enough factual allegations to
'nudge[ ] their claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible,' or 'their complaint must be
dismissed' for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (“A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.”). Regardless of whether a plaintiff is
represented or is appearing pro se, the plaintiffs complaint
must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim.
See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.
1985). After reviewing Plaintiff s pro se Complaint,
the Court finds that the Complaint should be, and hereby is,
dismissed sua sponte. The Complaint is nonsensical
and there is no basis for jurisdiction in this Court.
the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is a division
within the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration.
A suit against a state agency is barred by Eleventh Amendment
immunity. See Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431-32
(8th Cir. 1989) (suit brought solely against state or state
agency is proscribed by Eleventh Amendment); see also
Brown v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 452
Fed.Appx. 690, 693 (8th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (plaintiffs
§ 1983 claims against state agency barred by Eleventh
Complaint is both frivolous and barred by Eleventh Amendment
Immunity, therefore, the Complaint (Docket # 2) is dismissed
with prejudice. The Motion to Proceed In Forma