Mobley v. Central Intelligence Agency

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-00284-KDB-WCM
VICTORA MOBLEY,
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”) (Doc. No. 2). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT the Motion for the
limited purpose of conducting an initial review but DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice after conducting that review.
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
335 U.S. 331, 342-43 (1948)). To achieve its goal, the IFP statute “allows a litigant to commence
a civil or criminal action in federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit
stating … that he is unable to pay the costs of a lawsuit.” Id. In her IFP motion, Plaintiff states that
she currently has no job, little income and no expenses. She also does not list any assets. While
the affidavit lacks information that the Court would expect in a comprehensive financial affidavit,
Case 3:26-cv-00284-KDB-WCM Document 4 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
it appears likely that Plaintiff’s expenses exceed her income, and the Court finds that she does not
have assets that would allow her to pay for these proceedings. See Doc. No. 2.
Based on these representations, the Court will conditionally grant the motion and permit
Plaintiff to proceed IFP solely for the limited purposes of this initial review.
II. Initial Review
Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court must review the Complaint to determine
whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its frivolity review, this Court
must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded
upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327-28. Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district
court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in the Complaint which set forth a claim that is
cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Here, Plaintiff has sued the Central Intelligence Agency for violating various federal
regulations. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts a lengthy list of incredible claims involving killing at
least two people, harassing Plaintiff at numerous locations, placing a snake in her residence, etc.,
all without any explanation as to why the Agency has allegedly done all this to her. See Doc. No.
1. With all due respect to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails a frivolity review
and must be dismissed because of the nature of the Plaintiff’s allegations and the absence of
corroborating evidence.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s IFP motion (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED for purposes of this Order;
Case 3:26-cv-00284-KDB-WCM Document 4 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: May 1, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00284-KDB-WCM Document 4 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 3