United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
September 17, 2014
DANIEL FRANCIS PITCAIRN HENDRIE
LEGROME D. DAVIS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Daniel Francis Pitcairn Hendrie filed this action against President Obama and possibly others. He also filed a motion to proceed informa pauperis, which the Court will grant. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if "the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). Furthermore, as plaintiff is proceeding in Jorma pauperis, the Court must dismiss his complaint if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It is legally baseless if "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, " Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995), and factually baseless "when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id.
Plaintiffs complaint is comprised of phrases and arrows pointing to other phrases without any apparent logic. It references people, places, and time periods in a disjointed, nonsensical manner. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court cannot ascertain any factual basis for a non-frivolous claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Plaintiff will not be given leave to amend because the Court concludes that amendment would be futile, especially in light of plaintiffs prior complaints. See, e.g., Hendrie v. Corbett, Civ. A. No. 14-5025 (E.D. Pa.); Hendrie v. Reister, Civ. A. No. 13-680 (E.D. Pa.). An appropriate order follows, which shall be docketed separately.