United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
W. Moody Jr. United States District Judge
before this Court is the Plaintiffs motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and amended complaint. On August 20,
2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint because it was unclear whether she had stated a
claim within this Court's jurisdiction. 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.
September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In
it, she alleges that she called 9-1-1 because a man was
shooting at her. The police responded and took false
statements from witnesses stating that Plaintiff had fired
the gun. While he was present at Plaintiffs house, Deputy
Hollis asked Plaintiff if her dogs had their rabies shots and
tags. She stated that her dogs were too young for a rabies
shot. Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Hollis told her he was
writing her a ticket for violation of the rabies ordinance.
Plaintiff asked Deputy Hollis who was in charge. He told her
he was in charge. Plaintiff commented, "You won't be
Monday night?" Deputy Hollis took Plaintiffs statement
as a threat. Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Hollis handcuffed
her and took her to his police car which was parked on the
street in front of the neighbor's home who shot at her.
At some point while Plaintiff was getting into the police
car, Plaintiff alleges that she felt a sharp pain at the top
of her head. She contends that she fell to the ground.
Emergency medical personnel were dispatched. Plaintiff
alleges that a MEMS employee checked her vital signs and
commented that her blood pressure was elevated. According to
Plaintiff, the MEMS employee asked her if she took medication
and if she had seizures. Plaintiff confirmed that she
suffered from seizures. Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Hollis
accused her of faking a seizure and told her that he was
taking her to jail. Plaintiff claims that people made false
statements against her and the officers allowed it. She
claims that she filed several police reports regarding the
people, but officers did not take any action against anyone,
except her. Plaintiff claims she has recordings of her
reports to FCSO. She claims she must record them because FCSO
misrepresents her reports. (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 7).
Plaintiff includes several Amendments to the Constitution at
the end of her amended complaint.
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."
Id. A 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
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 spro se
amended complaint, the Court finds that it should be, and
hereby is, dismissed sua sponte. The amended
complaint does not state a claim and there is no basis for
jurisdiction in this Court.
amended complaint (ECF No. 7) is dismissed without prejudice.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)