The opinion of the court was delivered by: Yohn, J.
Plaintiff Stanley E. Kornafel moves the court to authorize him to proceed in forma pauperis with a civil rights action. Upon review of his statement in support of his motion, the court will grant the motion. However, because the court finds that the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, the court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, the dismissal will be with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
In his complaint, plaintiff names numerous defendants: the Delaware County, Pennsylvania District Attorney's Office; attorneys Michael Donohue and Sandra M. Urison (of the Delaware County District Attorney's Office); Judge George A. Pagano (Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania); the Police Department of Media, Pennsylvania; and Officer Eric Gavin and Lieutenants Joseph Ryan and Joseph Oberg (of the Media Police Department). In the complaint, plaintiff alleges the following:
Many years ago, Kornafel filed a lawsuit in this judicial district (No. 94-1361) (the "first lawsuit"). (Compl. at 2.) Attorney Maureen Repetto represented Kornafel in that lawsuit. Allegedly, Repetto's representation was lacking. Kornafel contends that Repetto, among other failings, "refused to make appearance at trial date" and filed a "false" stipulation with "misleading information" and without Kornafel's authorization. (Id.) Kornafel later filed a fraud and malpractice action against Repetto in Pennsylvania state court (No. 98-12708) (the "second lawsuit"), over which Judge Pagano presided. (Id. 2-3.) Kornafel alleges that Judge Pagano showed "partisan interest" in this second lawsuit, "forced arbitration" of the case, and prejudiced Kornafel by dismissing the case. (Id. at 3.) Kornafel alleges that he was denied access to justice in his attempts to both appeal Judge Pagano's rulings to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and to file a mandamus action against all judges involved in the proceedings. (Id.)
Separately, attorney William M. Thompson represented Kornafel in a divorce action (the "third lawsuit"). (Id. at 4.) Kornafel alleges that Thompson "filed false and misleading information" in that action and, in concert with opposing counsel and the master of the hearing, acted against Kornafel's interests by denying him access to the hearing and "depriv[ing]" him from giving testimony. Thompson, opposing counsel, and the master allegedly engaged in these misdeeds in retaliation because they knew of Kornafel's malpractice action against fellow-attorney Repetto (the second lawsuit). Apparently, Kornafel then unsuccessfully sued Thompson for malpractice (the "fourth lawsuit"). (Id. at 5.)
On December 1, 2008, Kornafel filed a private criminal complaint against Repetto. (Id. at 5, Ex. A.) Noting that a complainant must allege specific facts in his complaint, defendant-attorney Michael Donohue (of the Delaware County District Attorney's Office) disapproved the complaint, writing that it was "referred to police, private attorney, and[/]or disciplinary board."
(Id. at Ex. A.) Kornafel then contacted the Media Police Department and eventually spoke with Lieutenants Joseph Ryan and Joseph Oberg (both defendants to the present action), both of whom refused to pursue Kornafel's complaint. (Id. at 5-6.)
On December 23, 2008, Kornafel filed a private criminal complaint against Thompson. (Id. at 6, Ex. B.) Defendant-attorney Sandra M. Urison (of the Delaware County District Attorney's Office) disapproved the complaint because it lacked prosecutorial merit. (Id. at Ex. B.)
Also on December 23, 2008, defendant-Officer Eric Gavin of the Media Police Department "advised plaintiff that the matters were beyond his investigative scope," but referred plaintiff to the Special Prosecution Office. (Id. at 7.) Kornafel then attempted to contact the Special Prosecution Office by telephone. As of the filing of the instant complaint, Kornafel had not heard back from the Special Prosecution Office or Officer Gavin. (Id.)
Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus "to force authorities to allow plaintiff to file [a] proper complaint, or other forms . . . [and] any form of monetary relief the court may deem appropriate." (Id.)
As mentioned above, the court will grant plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Actions in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss a case if it determines the action: "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such ...