Yan Ping Xu v. Suffolk County, New York, et al.

In Neitzke, this Court held that a complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A claim is factually frivolous “[w]hen the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992). “Neitzke v. Williams, supra, provided us with our first occasion to construe the meaning of ‘frivolous’ under § 1915(d).” Id. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was redesignated as § 1915(e) in 1996. See § 1915 amendment notes in 1996. In this case, petitioner contends that, for example, 1.The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a narrow doctrine, is inapplicable to this independent action, and this case does not meet the party identity and time prerequisites for the application, and the claims deny a conclusion reached by the state court that is permissible; 2. Public defendants’ unreasonable warrantless seizure of petitioner’s home invaded her privacy by state court orders under color of state law in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The question presented is: Whether the appeal has been properly dismissed “because it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact’ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) ”