The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
On August 30, 2011, pro se plaintiff John Pickering-George (adopted) John R. Daley, Jr., ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint against the City of New York, Human Resource Administration, Family Independence Administration, Office of Legal Affairs, Bureau of Administrative Procedures, Human Resources Administration, and the Family Independence Administration Job Center Agencies Location (collectively, "Defendants"). Accompanying the Complaint is an application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but sua sponte dismisses the Complaint.
Plaintiff, a frequent filer in this Court,*fn1 has filed yet another incomprehensible Complaint. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff's claims arise under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, in that the Defendants are withholding certain, unspecified documents from Plaintiff. (Compl. at page 1). Plaintiff explains that these documents were the subject of one of his prior lawsuits in this Court, 11-CV-0064(JS)(ETB). As the Court can best discern, Plaintiff seeks to re-litigate his FOIA claims that were sua sponte dismissed by this Court by Order dated May 31, 2011. See Dkt. 11-CV-0064(JS)(ETB), Pickering-George v. City of New York, et al., Order, dated May 31, 2011, Seybert, D.J. Plaintiff alleges that he filed a "direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court" of the May 31, 2011 Order.
A. In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of the Plaintiff's application, this Court finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
B. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Section 1915 of Title 28 requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as it makes such a determination. See id.
Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). If a liberal reading of the complaint "gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated," courts must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).
An action is "frivolous" when "the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy." Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted). "[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992); see also Gelish v. Social Sec. Admin., No. 10-CV-3713 (JS), 2010 WL 3780372, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2010); McCormick v. Jackson, No. 07-CV-7893 (JSR), 2008 WL 3891260 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008). As is readily apparent from a casual reading of the Complaint, the allegations in this case "rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
Notwithstanding the Second Circuit's preference for adjudication of cases on the merits, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint because, even affording the Complaint a liberal reading, there is no indication that a valid claim might be stated. Cuoco, 222 F.3d at 112.
As stated above, Plaintiff is no stranger to this and other federal courts.*fn2 In addition to this action and the cases noted in footnote # 1 (supra at 2, note 1), Plaintiff has also been barred from filing any further in forma pauperis civil complaints in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Pickering-George v. Holder, et al., 129 S. Ct. 2061, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1131 (2009) ("As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in non-criminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid"). Similarly, the Second Circuit has entered a leave-to-file sanction ...