as well as twenty-five million dollars in punitive damages from each of the over 70 defendants.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) provides that a complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed if the court is "satisfied that the action is either frivolous or malicious." In order to avoid a dismissal for frivolity under § 1915(d) a complaint must present a colorable legal argument, Dreibelbis v. Marks, 675 F.2d 579, 580 (3d Cir. 1982); see also United States ex rel Walker v. Fayette County, 599 F.2d 573, 575 (3d Cir. 1979) (per curiam), with a realistic chance of ultimate success on the merits. Clark v. Zimmerman, 394 F. Supp. 1166, 1178 (M.D.Pa. 1975); Daves v. Scranton, 66 F.R.D. 5, 7 (E.D. Pa. 1975). If the plaintiff is unable to make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of his or her claim the complaint may be deemed frivolous and is subject to § 1915(d) dismissal. King v. Fayette County, 92 F.R.D. 457, 458 (W.D. Pa. 1981); citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The plaintiff here has been unable to present a single rational legal theory to afford her relief nor has she presented any facts which support her claims, and therefore her complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
Even with the most generous of readings plaintiff's complaint is nothing but a compilation of vague and accusatory personal attacks devoid of any specific facts which could give credence to her allegations.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this complaint will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 1987, in accordance with the Memorandum filed this date, it is ORDERED that:
1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and
2. The complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d).