IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JAMES JOHN PITTMAN,
) CIVIL ACTION NO.3:06CV1053-WKW
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
ALABAMA, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, JAMES PITTMAN, has filed a pro se complaint alleging civil rights
violations against the Attorney General of the State of Alabama; City of Auburn Police
Department; City of Birmingham Police Department; City of Gardendale Police Department;
Shelby County Sheriff’s Department; Walker County Sheriff’s Department; and, sixty-eight
County District Attorneys. Pending before this court is plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that plaintiff’s motion should be
DENIED and his complaint should be dismissed for a variety of reasons.
First, plaintiff’s complaint, which is presented in a general and conclusory fashion
fails to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), by including a statement of the acts or
omissions as well as pertinent dates and places for any relevant occurrences of each
defendant who is alleged to have violated any federal constitutional or statutory rights,
together with a concise summary of the manner in which the named defendants accomplished
the alleged violations.
Secondly, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I), an action filed in
forma pauperis may be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious. A claim is frivolous when
Case 3:06-cv-01053-WKW-WC Document 5 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 1 of 3
Pittman v. Attorney General, State of Alabama et al (MAG+)
it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109
S. Ct. 1827 (1989). The lawsuit before the court is plainly frivolous because it lacks an
arguable basis in the law.
As best the court can determine the complaint appears to allege a denia