(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 92-3648
Summary Calendar
JACQUELINE CARR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
HONORABLE FRANCE WATTS, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(CA-92-1889-E)
(February 12, 1993)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jaqueline Carr filed a pro se and in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 suit against numerous state and private actors and entities
alleging claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, abuse of
process, false imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and libel.
According to Carr's complaint, her arrest, detention, and

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Spears v. Mccotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
2
prosecution for unauthorized use of an access credit card over $500
was pursued with malice and without probable cause. Without
holding a Spears1 hearing or further developing the claims, the
district court determined that the complaint's factual allegations
were clearly baseless and dismissed the suit as frivolous pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The district court did not identify which
factual assertions or portions of the complaint he considered to be
baseless.
A complaint filed in forma pauperis can be dismissed by the
court sua sponte if the complaint is frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d). A complaint that lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
is frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, U.S. , 112 S. Ct. 1728,
1733, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992). The in forma pauperis statute
gives courts "`the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose
factual contentions are clearly baseless.'" Id. (citation
omitted). "Examples of complaints within the clearly baseless
category are those which describe fanciful, fantastic, or
delusional scenarios." Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc. 964 F.2d 465,
468 (5th Cir. 1992). "Pleaded facts which are merely improbable or
strange, however, are not frivolous for section 1915(d) purposes."
Id. This court reviews a § 1915(d) dismissal under the abuse-of-
discretion standard. Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734.
Carr's complaint alleges that the defendants had no evidence
to support the charge against her and that they pursued the

-- 2 of 3 --

2It should be noted that the district court did not dismiss
Carr's action on the basis of absolute or qualified immunity.
Although the record is not sufficiently developed, it appears that
some of the defendants may not be immune.
3
criminal prosecution in bad faith using falsified evidence.
According to her appeal brief, she was acquitted of the charge on
July 24, 1992. The facts alleged in support of Carr's claims are
not outside "the reasonable bounds of credulity." See Ancar, 964
F.2d at 470. Furthermore, claims of false arrest, false
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution are encompassed within
§ 1983. Thomas v. Kipperman, 846 F.2d 1009, 1011 (5th Cir. 1988).
Thus, as Carr's claims are not facially frivolous as a matter of
law and the factual allegations with respect to her claims are not
clearly baseless, the dismissal of the claims as frivolous
constituted an abuse of discretion.2
Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal and remand the case to
the district court for further proceedings, including in the
court's discretion, a Spears hearing, or other appropriate factual
development.
Reversed and remanded.

-- 3 of 3 --