United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
September 16, 2005.
DUNCAN J. McNEIL, III, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: YVETTE KANE, District Judge
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Before the Court are Plaintiff's pro se Complaint (Docs.
No. 1), First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12), Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 13), and application to proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc No. 3).*fn1 Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis is hereby granted, however, Plaintiff's complaint will
be dismissed as legally frivolous, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The Court is required to review a pro se plaintiff's complaint
prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal
(i) is frivolous or malicious
* * *
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact" or the claims describe
"fantastic or delusional scenarios." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319
, 325-28 (1989).
Plaintiff is a resident of Spokane, Washington and is presently
incarcerated in Spokane County Prison. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Within
his three handwritten complaints, Plaintiff accuses the United
States of America, Clerk of Court for the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Clerk of Court for
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, United States Attorney's office, Office of the
United States Trustee, United States Marshall's Service, Federal
Bureau of Investigations, Internal Revenue Service, Secret
Service, and John Does 1 through 500, of multiple federal
statutory and constitutional violations. (Doc. No. 4.) These
claims include, inter alia, complaints about: Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff unspecified liquidated damages; failure
to keep unspecified records; access to the Courts; retaliation by
Defendants; and the conditions and validity of his imprisonment.
In particular, Plaintiff claims that he is under "imminent danger
of serious physical injury . . . due to acts of intentional
indifference to the plaintiff's health, safety and welfare . . ."
by Defendants, including, inter alia, the withholding of
medication. (Doc. No. 13 at 8-9.)
Although Plaintiff's papers are difficult to parse, it appears
that on September 26, 2000, the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiff in the amount of $309,610 for services he rendered to a
company going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (Doc. No. 1 at
18-22.) Plaintiff claims that he is the "owner of certain
`foreign judgments,'" but provides the Court with no details as
to what monies are owed and by whom. (Doc. No. 1.) In his
complaints, Plaintiff generally alleges that he is wrongly
imprisoned, but neither indicates the purported basis for his
imprisonment nor why his confinement is unlawful. Further,
Plaintiff pleads nothing to indicate that the Middle District of
Pennsylvania was the locus delicti for any of the events described in his complaints.
Even under the most liberal reading of the Complaint, Plaintiff
fails to allege any facts that would provide an arguable basis in
law or fact for any claim for which relief can be granted against
the named Defendants. Plaintiff does not indicate how any of the
above-named Defendants are implicated in his incarceration in a
county prison, nor how they are connected in any way to
Plaintiff's other numerous claims.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's complaint (Docs. No. 1, 12, and
13) is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous
relief (Doc. No. 10) and motion for findings of fact/conclusions
of law (Doc. No. 14) are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the file.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.