The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Graham
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Cinseree Johnson, originally filed a complaint in this Court in July 2006. That complaint was screened and this Court recommended that it be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (doc. #2). Ms. Johnson amended her complaint, and the amended complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. For the following reasons, this Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma pauperis, "[t]he court shall dismiss the case if ... (B) the action ... is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted...." The purpose of this section is to prevent suits which are a waste of judicial resources and which a paying litigant would not initiate because of the costs involved. See, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous only when the plaintiff fails to present a claim with an arguable or rational basis in law or fact. See id. at 325. Claims which lack such a basis include those for which the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which does not exist, see id. at 327-28, and "claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar." Id. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if "it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 4l, 45-46 (l957). Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally in favor of the pro se party. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). It is with these standards in mind that the plaintiff's complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be considered.
On November 11, 2006, Ms. Johnson filed a complaint in this Court alleging (reproduced verbatim):
1. On or about April 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC).
2. On or about April 7, 2006, the OCRC assigned G Renae Wallace to investigate plaintiff/ complainants complaint.
3. On or about April 14, 2006 and thereafter, G Renae Wallace violated plaintiff/ complainants right to due process, pursuant to the fourteenth amendment, by: deliberately impeding an investigation; failing to conduct a fair and impartial investigation; failure to investigate a complaint
4. On or about July 1, 2006, OCRC manager Leon Adams and Director G Michael Payton denied plaintiff/complainants request asking OCRC to assign a new investigator to the case despite that plaintiff/complaintant alleged prejudice and violations of due process.
5. On or about July 11, 2006, plaintiff/complaintant contacted Commission Chairman Aaron Wheeler regarding her request for the appointment of a new investigator. Chairman Wheeler agreed the case should be "switched out" and promised to speak with OCRC director Michael Payton to initiate the change.
6. On or about July 15, 2006, manager Leon Adams again denied plaintiff/complainants request for a new investigation despite allegations of prejudice and violations of due process.
7. As of the date of this filing, plaintiff/complaintiff has received no communication regarding the status of the investigation and contends that the OCRC's failure to investigate her complaint and failure to provide a fair and impartial investigation of the complaint is a deliberate violation of her right to liberty and due process as pursuant to the forutheeth amendment.
(Am. Complaint at p. 6.) It appears from the complaint that Ms. Johnson is alleging a procedural due process violation resulting from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission's (OCRC) failure to ...