be maintained in the district before it may permit the plaintiff to proceed with his or her action in forma pauperis. See id. In deciding whether a complaint states a colorable claim a court must extend a certain measure of deference towards pro se litigants, Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam), and extreme caution should be exercised in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint before the adverse party has been served and the parties have had an opportunity to respond, Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir.1983). There is, nonetheless, an obligation on the part of the court to determine that a claim is not frivolous before permitting a plaintiff to proceed. See Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Wachtler v. Cnty. of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77, 82
holding that district court may dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte notwithstanding fact the plaintiff has paid statutory filing fee holding that a district court has the discretion to raise a  2254 timeliness consideration sua sponte holding that a court may sua sponte take judicial notice of its docket holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss pursuant to rule 41b for failure to comply with a court order recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff