United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
HAMLET GARCIA, JR. Plaintiff,
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, et al. Defendants. HAMLET GARCIA, JR. Plaintiff,
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants. HAMLET GARCIA, JR. Plaintiff,
CHRISTINA A. KING, Defendant.
A. MCHUGH, J.
before the Court are three separate complaints filed by
plaintiff Hamlet Garcia, Jr. and his motions to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his
complaints because they are frivolous and appear to duplicate
prior cases that plaintiff recently filed in this Court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
has initiated five civil actions in this Court in the past
four months. In his first case, Garcia v. County of
Bucks, E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 17-3381, plaintiff raised
numerous claims-primarily pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983-arising out of his arrests, conviction, probation
violation, and incarceration. His claims were based on a
series of events beginning with his arrest in December of
2012 for possession of marijuana.
granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court dismissed his initial complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii),
because plaintiffs claims were either frivolous or failed to
state a plausible claim as pled. Among other things, the
Court held that plaintiffs public defenders-including
Christina King-were not state actors for purposes of §
1983, that plaintiffs challenges to his conviction and
probation/parole violations were not cognizable because his
conviction and probation/parole violations had not been
invalidated, and that plaintiffs claims related to his 2012
arrest and confinement before his arraignment were
time-barred. However, as it appeared that plaintiff could
state a claim based on the conditions in which he was
incarcerated at the Bucks County Jail in December of 2016,
plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint.
filed an amended complaint challenging the conditions at the
Bucks County Jail and naming his public defender Christina
King as one of many defendants, but four days later filed a
second amended complaint. After reminding plaintiff that his
public defender is not a state actor for purposes of §
1983, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint as
legally frivolous because it challenged plaintiffs conviction
on the basis of plaintiff s alleged "secured party
citizen status" and/or other baseless legal theories.
However, plaintiff was given leave to file a third amended
complaint based on the conditions in which he was confined at
the Bucks County Jail in December of 2016.
filed a third amended complaint in Civil Action Number
17-3381 that again named Christina King as one of several
defendants. After dismissing plaintiffs claims against Ms.
King and his claims challenging his conviction and the
prosecution leading to that conviction, the Court directed
service of plaintiff s third amended complaint so that he
could proceed on claims arising out of his December 2016
incarceration at the Bucks County Jail.
before plaintiff filed his third amended complaint in Civil
Action Number 17-3381, plaintiff initiated a new civil action
against Temple University, two campus security officers-Kevin
Myslinski and Cataldi Brooke-and other defendants arising
from an April 16, 2017 arrest and weapons charge that was
filed against plaintiff but subsequently withdrawn. See
Garcia v. Temple University, E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No.
17-4987. After granting plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court directed service of his
returned to the Court to file three new civil actions, which
are currently pending before the Court. All of the complaints
in those cases are styled as though plaintiff is acting as a
prosecutor. The complaints are all marked with a red
fingerprint and bear the title "I, require: a 'court
of record': 'trial by jury';" followed by
"claim: trespass [forgery]." Civil Action Number
17-5324 is filed against Temple University, Cataldi Brooke,
and Kevin Myslinski, and purports to be based on a
"trespass" that began on April 16, 2017. Civil
Action Number 17-5325 is filed against the "State of
Pennsylvania" based on a "trespass" that began
on December 3, 2012. Civil Action Number 17-5326 is filed
against Christina A. King, based on a purported
"trespass" that began on December 21, 2016.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in all three cases and requests damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
motions to proceed in forma pauperis are granted
because it appears that plaintiff is incapable of paying the
fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires the Court to dismiss his
complaints if they are frivolous or malicious. 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), and is legally baseless if it is "based
on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Deutsch
v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995).
"A court that considers whether an action is malicious
must, in accordance with the definition of the term
'malicious, ' engage in a subjective inquiry into the
litigant's motivations at the time of the filing of the
lawsuit to determine whether the action is an attempt to vex,
injure or harass the defendant." Id. at 1086.
In that regard, "a district court may dismiss a
complaint as malicious if it is plainly abusive of the
judicial process or merely repeats pending or previously
litigated claims." Brodzki v. CBS Sports, Civ.
A. No. 11-841, 2012 WL 125281, at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 13, 2012).
Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaints in Civil Actions
17-5324, 17-5325, and 17-5326 as frivolous and malicious. The
complaints are not predicated on any legitimate legal theory
and appear to replicate claims that are already pending
before the Court. As explained above, plaintiff is proceeding
on any legitimate claims he may have against the defendants
named in these actions based on the conditions in which he
was incarcerated at the Bucks County Jail in December of
2016, and his arrest and prosecution in April of 2017. The
Court has repeatedly informed plaintiff that he lacks a
legitimate basis for a § 1983 claim stemming from his
conviction or based on the conduct of his public defenders.
Furthermore, as previously explained to plaintiff, any claims
based on legal theories related to his alleged secured party
status or sovereign citizen status are entirely frivolous.
See Garcia v. Cty. of Bucks, No. CV 17-3381, 2017 WL
4844293, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2017) (concluding that
plaintiffs second amended complaint was legally frivolous
because "[t]he gist of [the second amended complaint] is
that plaintiffs conviction is invalid-and should be vacated
by this Court-because of plaintiffs secured party citizen
status and/or because of theories based on admiralty,
copyright, or trademark law. Plaintiffs second amended
complaint is the epitome of legally frivolous and will be
dismissed on that basis."); Garcia v. Bucks Cty.
Justice Or., No. CV 17-3381, 2017 WL 4126349, at *3
(E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2017) ("Claims based on Resolution
75, the Sundry Free Moors Act, the Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC),
other treaties pertaining to Moorish people, and the Zodiac
Constitution, are likewise frivolous.").