The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Chief Judge Kane)
On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff Dawn Marie Ball filed a complaint against Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 1; Doc. No. 2.) For the reasons stated more fully herein, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in federal court who currently has in excess of twenty cases pending before this Court.*fn2 See Ball v. SCI Muncy, No.1:08-CV-700 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. SCI Muncy, No. 1:08-CV-701 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Hill, No.1:09-CV-773 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Beard, No. 1:09-CV-845 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Lamas, No. 1:09-CV-846, (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Oden, No. 1:09-CV-847 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Bower, No. 1:10-CV-2561 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Sisley, No. 1:11-CV-877 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Struther, No. 1:11-CV-1265 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Hummel, No. 1:11-CV-1422 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Beckley, No. 1:11-CV-1829 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Sipe, No. 1:11-CV-1830 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Craver, No. 1:11-CV-1831 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Powley, No. 1:11-CV-1832 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Cooper, No. 1:11-CV-1833 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Famiglio, No. 1:11-CV-1834 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Eckroth, No. 1:11-CV-2238 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Campbell, No. 1:11-CV-2239 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Barr, No. 1:11-CV-2240 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Giroux, No. 1:12-CV-10 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Giroux, No. 1:12-CV-11 (M.D. Pa.); Ball v. Curham, No. 1:12-CV-12 (M.D. Pa.). To assist this Court in the management of these cases, the Court has referred these actions to Judge Carlson for the resolution of any pretrial matters and for the purpose of preparing Reports and Recommendations.
On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint styled as a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Judge Carlson. Plaintiff alleges, in full:
Since this Judge been assigned to my cases w/out my agreement, he has slandered my name and stated lies about me and hurt my cases. He is prejudice against me because I am a inmate. He lied and said things I did not say, and played word games w/ my complaint to help the defendants and harm my cases. He tried and did make me look bad. See all his orders, opinions and Report and Recommendations. And he helped defendant in what to say to help win their cases I have on them. (Doc. No. 1.)
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A:
(a) Screening. The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal. On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint --
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to Section 1915A, courts apply the same standards as they would for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court may "consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim." Lum, 361 F.3d at 221 n.3. The motion will only be properly granted when, taking all factual allegations and inferences drawn therefrom as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Markowitz v. Ne. Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990). A court, however, "need not credit a complaint's 'bald assertions' or 'legal conclusions' when deciding a motion to dismiss." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906, 908 (3d Cir. 1997). Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that while the 12(b)(6) standard does not require "detailed factual allegations," there must be a "'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion of entitlement to relief. . . . '[F]actual allegations must be enough to ...