SAM R. CUMMINGS, U.S. District Judge.
Came on for consideration the Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which was received by the Clerk on January 14, 2002. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of "Title VII Housing" "because I went over their [Public Housing Authority of San Angelo, Texas] heads with a matter, they droped [sic] me off of housing." Plaintiff states that she wants "$60,000 for them leaving me and my children in the streets without a home."
When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court: shell dismiss the complaint at any time if t.he Court determine's that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) Although in forma pauperis complaints are construed liberally, this Court is still bound by the allegations in the complaint and is not free to speculate that the plaintiff "might" be able to state a claim if given yet another opportunity to add more facts to the complaint. Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994). A questionnaire or evidentiary hearing may be used to assist the court in determining whether cases should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See id. Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 191 (5th Cir. 1992). The opportunity to expand the claims and underlying facts through a questionnaire limits the Court's license to engage in speculation as to the existence of additional facts. Macias, 23 F.3d at 97.
Plaintiff was given the opportunity to amend hot complaint by her responses to written questions from the Court; questions that were specifically tailored to elicit relevant facts that might support her claims. Even construing this matter liberally, it cannot be interpreted an raising anything other than a frivolous claim. Read most favorably to Plaintiff; her complaint states that she was evicted from her housing because she failed to meet the housing quality. Plaintiff further states that it was the landlord, not she, who failed to meet the housing quality; and because she reported this to the Pair Housing Hotline, she was evicted. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under any section of the Fair Housing Act which is designed to ensure that no one is denied the right to live where they choose for discriminatory reasons. 42 U.S.C. § 3604, 3605, 3606, 3617. In addition, Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Uuited States Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1437 et seq. Plaintiff received prior notification of reason for eviction and was given the opportunity to respond. 42 U.S.C. § 1437d. Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim under any section of the Housing and Community Development Act. 42 U.S.C. § 5301 et seq.
The Court, having considered the application and the Questionnaire, is of the opinion that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and that leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be DENIED.