Anderson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

SYLVIA ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 26-CV-00345-SEH-JFJ

JAMES D’AUGUSTE;

DIANNE T. RENWICK;

SALLIE MANZANET-DANIELS;

SUZANNE J. ADAMS; and

HECTOR LASSALE,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Sylvia Anderson’s complaint [ECF No. 1] and

motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2]. For the reasons set out

below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismisses her complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff moves to file this action in forma pauperis. [ECF No. 2]. Based on

the representations set forth in Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds the motion

should be granted. Plaintiff is permitted to file and maintain this action to

conclusion without prepayment of fees and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

However, because authorization to proceed in forma pauperis excuses only

prepayment of the fee, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full filing fee

when she is able. See Brown v. Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221, 1230-31 (10th Cir.

2013) (noting that authorization to proceed in forma pauperis only excuses

prepayment of the filing fee).

As Plaintiff has obtained leave to file in forma pauperis, her complaint is

subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408

F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th Cir. 2005). Section 1915(e)(2) requires a district court

to dismiss a case if at any time the court determines that “the action ... (i) is

frivolous or malicious [or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted.”

Aside from the case caption, the entirety of Plaintiff's Complaint consists

of the following:

Defendants showed fast speed in claims Defendants are subjected to actions

Plaintiff requests this Court to adjudicate.

Sylvig/fnderson

[ECF No. 1]. The Court does not know what this means.

A pro se plaintiff's complaint must be liberally construed. Hall v. Bellmon,

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, liberal construction of a pro

se plaintiffs allegations “does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of

alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Id.

Notwithstanding a pro se plaintiff’s various mistakes or misunderstandings

of legal doctrines or procedural requirements, “if the court can reasonably

read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail,

it should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority,

[her] confusion of various legal theories, [her] poor syntax and sentence

construction, or [her] unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Id.

“Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only

where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts [she] has

alleged, and it would be futile to give [her] an opportunity to amend.” Kay v.

Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The standard

for dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as dismissals under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Id. A complaint must contain

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

The Court need not accept “mere conclusions characterizing pleaded

facts.” Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990); see

also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“While a complaint attacked by a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a

plaintiffs obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of [her] ‘entitlement to relief

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do”) (cleaned up). Nor will the Court

“supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or

construct a legal theory on a plaintiffs behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113

F.3d 1170, 1175 (10th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff's complaint consists of less than two full lines of text, and the

statements therein are so sparse that the Court does not know what to make

of the Complaint. Due to the Complaint’s complete lack of specific allegations

against any defendant, Plaintiff has failed state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. This action is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.

I. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. A separate judgment will be filed contemporaneously with this

order.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2026.

Some

Sara E. Hill ie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE