From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McMillan v. Garland

United States District Court, District of Columbia
May 13, 2022
Civil Action 1:22-cv-00370 (UNA) (D.D.C. May. 13, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 1:22-cv-00370 (UNA)

05-13-2022

LESLIE MCMILLIN, Plaintiff, v. MERRICK GARLAND, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

TREVOR N. McFADDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. First, The Local Rules of this court state require that a first filing shall include in the caption a pro se plaintiff's name, full residence address, and telephone number. See D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). Though parties may request to seal this information from the public docket, they must still provide this contact information by filing a notice under seal. See id. Here, plaintiff has neither provided her address in the complaint's caption nor submitted it by filing a separate notice under seal.

Second, under the statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, having reviewed the prolix complaint carefully, the Court concludes that it cannot discern what claim or claims plaintiff intends to bring; the complaint will thus be dismissed. See Gwinnell-Kennedy v. U.S. Gov't Judiciary, No. 09-cv-737, 2009 WL 1089543, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2009) (summarily dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because it was “incoherent”); McGuire v. U.S. District Court, No. 10-cv-696, 2010 WL 1855858, at *1 (D.D.C. May 4, 2010) (summarily dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because it was “largely incoherent and nonsensical”); cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing ....factual allegations and legal conclusions . . . lack[ing] an arguable basis either in law or in fact” shall be dismissed.). Plaintiff has also filed a motion to expedite, ECF No. 4, which will be denied because it is now moot, and additionally, equally incomprehensible to the complaint.

Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismisses the complaint and this civil action without prejudice, and denies the motion to expedite. A separate order will issue.


Summaries of

McMillan v. Garland

United States District Court, District of Columbia
May 13, 2022
Civil Action 1:22-cv-00370 (UNA) (D.D.C. May. 13, 2022)
Case details for

McMillan v. Garland

Case Details

Full title:LESLIE MCMILLIN, Plaintiff, v. MERRICK GARLAND, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Columbia

Date published: May 13, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 1:22-cv-00370 (UNA) (D.D.C. May. 13, 2022)