Shawn R. Hines v. United States of America

DPS-73 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4055
________________
SHAWN R. HINES,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; JOHN DOE;
JANE DOE; ABC CORP.; XYZ CORP., said
names being fictitious and representing unknown
potentially liable parties
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-03523)
District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden
__________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 8, 2005
Before: ROTH, FUENTES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed February 8, 2006)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Shawn R. Hines, a resident of West Orange, New Jersey, filed an in

-- 1 of 2 --

Although we require district courts to grant a motion for leave to proceed in forma1
pauperis under section 1915(a) based on economic criteria alone before dismissing a
complaint as frivolous, Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1976), we conclude that
such a grant is implied in the District Court’s order. We note that Hines’ monthly
expenses exceed his disability income.
2
forma pauperis complaint in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the United States of America and others, alleging a violation of his civil rights
under domestic and international law. Hines claimed that the United States government
and others have tortured him with poisonous gas for the last 12 years whenever he tried to
study toward his career goals. He sought $10,000,000 in money damages and injunctive
relief. The District Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1
Our Clerk granted Hines leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous. The federal in forma pauperis statute
permits an indigent litigant to take an appeal without paying the administrative costs of
proceeding with the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The statute protects against abuses of this
privilege by allowing the appeals court to dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992). We thus have the “unusual power to pierce the veil
of the [underlying] complaint’s factual allegations, id. at 32 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)), and dismiss the appeal where those factual allegations are
delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible, id. at 33. We have carefully reviewed Hines’
complaint and conclude that it is clearly baseless for those very reasons.
We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

-- 2 of 2 --