Michael R. Atraqchi, et ux. v. United States, et al.

In the instance case, there has been a split of authority between the Eighth Circuit in Abramson v Mitchell, 459 F.2d 955 (1972), and the case at hand in the Eleventh Circuit when the District Court dismissed the federal question complaint sua sponte pursuant to Statute 18 USCA 2520 without a hearing, as” frivolous” in direct conflict with the ruling of Mr. Justice Clark of the U.S. Supreme Court sitting in special designation in the Eighth Circuit who held that cases under Statute 18 USCA 2520 should not be dismissed, but rather a hearing should be held, evidence produced, and decision made accordingly. The question to be presented:

1. Whether the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit affirming the lower Court’s decision in dismissing the Pro se, federal question in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C 2520 as “frivolous” without a hearing, is in direct conflict with the opinion of the Eighth Circuit rendered in Abramson v Mitchell, 459 F 2d 955 (Circuit 8, 1972). There has been a split of authority between the Ninth Circuit in Denton u Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25

2. and the Eleventh Circuit opinion, affirming the lower court’s decision to dismiss the Atraqchis’ complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915 as frivolous without a hearing. The question to be presented:

3. Whether the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit affirming the lower Court’s decision in dismissing the Pro se in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 USC 1915 without a hearing, is in direct conflict with the opinion of the Ninth