UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ALLEN WOLFSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

No. 07-4114
v.	(D. o f Utah)
GINO CARLUCCI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SALT LAKE COUNTY, MICHAEL HIRATA, and STATE OF UTAH,

Respondents-Appellees.	(D.C. No. 2:06-CV-960-PGC)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HENRY, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.**

Allen Wolfson appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1985. Wolfson alleges the United States, the State of Utah, U.S. Attorney Mike Hirata, and Salt Lake County all conspired with Gino Carlucci to cover up Carlucci's theft of equipment from Wolfson's property in return for Carlucci testifying against Wolfson and his son in court. Wolfson contends the different levels of government worked together to drop charges against Carlucci in return for his testimony. We AFFIRM the district court's sua sponte dismissal.

Wolfson proceeded in forma pauperis below and is subject to the strictures of 28 U.S.C. 1915. The legal standard for dismissal under 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) differs from that of a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); see also McKinney v. Oklahoma, Dep't of Human Services, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires a court to dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it is "frivolous or malicious." Under this provision, district court judges may "pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. . .[i.e.] claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar."2 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 28. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) also allows for dismissal of suits against defendants who are immune to such suits.

The district court sua sponte dismissed Wolfson's claims on several grounds. First, it correctly found prosecutorial immunity for Hirata and sovereign immunity for the State of Utah. Second, it noted that the dismissal of criminal charges against Carlucci did not amount to a claim under 1985. Third, it found that Wolfson had failed to plead any facts that would give the court jurisdiction over Carlucci under 28 U.S.C. 1332 or any other jurisdictional statute. Finally, with its citation to McKinney, the district court found that Wolfson's allegations were sufficiently fanciful that they warranted dismissal as frivolous or malicious.

We agree with the district court's analysis and AFFIRM the dismissal of Wolfson's claims. We deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge