United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding prose, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Compl. [DE-l]. Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed without prepayment of the full civil filing fee [DE-2]. The matter is now before the undersigned for frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In reviewing an in forma pauperis application, a court "shall dismiss" any case that is "frivolous or malicious, " that "fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, " or that "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). A case is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A case is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of the pleading is flexible, and a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). Erickson, however, does not dispense with the "requirement that a pleading contain more than labels and conclusions.'" Giarratano v. Johnson , 521 F.3d 298, 304 n.5 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Com. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009); Nemet Chevrolet Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc. , 591 F.3d 250, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2009); Francis v. Giacomelli , 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have "refused to timely process [his] application for executive clemency." Compl. [DE-l], p. 3. His allegations fail to state a viable claim. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodward , 523 U.S. 272 (1998) (holding that clemency decisions are generally not entitled to judicial review and that the clemency procedures at issue did not violate the Due Process Clause); Conn. Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat , 452 U.S. 458, 465 (1981) (holding that there is no constitutionally protected interest in clemency); see also Taylor v. Hennig, No.5: 12CVOOO 10, 2012 WL 1533169, at *2 (W. D. Va. Apr. 19, 2012)("Clemency is an executive remedy exclusively that... is not subject to judicial review by a federal court."); Brunson v. City of Sumter, No. CA 3:11-2662-JFA-PJG, 2011 WL 6122624, at *3 n.l (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2011)("This court cannot grant Plaintiff a pardon or clemency for state or federal crimes.").
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous and his pending motions [DE-6, 12] are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk ...