Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brett v. D'Andrea

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

February 6, 2018

FRANK BRETT, Plaintiff
v.
MARY D'ANDREA, et al., Defendants

          Kane Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Susan E. Schwab United States Chief Magistrate Judge

         I. Introduction.

         This case comes before the Court for a statutorily mandated screening review of the complaint. On September 1, 2017, the plaintiff, Frank Brett, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 4). By a separate order, we granted Brett's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 8 at 1, 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), we reviewed the complaint and concluded that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. We afforded Brett leave to file an amended complaint by December 6, 2017. Id. at 8. To date, Brett has failed to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, we recommend that the Court dismiss Brett's complaint against each of the defendants.

         II. Factual Background and Procedural History.

         On September 1, 2017, Brett filed a complaint (doc. 1), naming twenty-five defendants: (1) Mary E. D'Andrea; (2) New Jersey Governor Chris Christy; (3) Bill Naulty; (4) David Wildstein; (5) Mr. Service; (6) Bridget Kelly; (7) David Samson; (8) Doug Borger; (9) John Leehman; (10) Sterling Tarbett; (11) Steve Carramunche; (12) Summer Boobs; (13) John Runyan; (14) Adido Jones; (15) Judge John Toal; (16) Mr. Man; (17) Bruce Cutler; (18) Vincent Mancini; (19) Bill Baronie; (20) Jaimie Fox; (21) Tom Hillion; (22) Tom Hillion's White Woman Maid; (23) Atlantis Strip Club; (24) Jelk Sinesinic; and (25) Wolfe and Samson.[1]

         Although Brett brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, his handwritten complaint is often illegible, rambling, and incomprehensible. From what can be gathered, Brett alleges that while serving as a federal informant he witnessed a myriad of crimes by public officials who acted in collusion with the Gambino Mafia family. See doc. 1 at 4-5; doc. 1-1 at 6, 9, 12. In 2011, Brett was discharged as a federal informant, and thereafter government officials, and members and associates of the mafia, stalked him, broke into his home, beat him, and poisoned him and his family, which led to his two children dying. See doc. 1 at 4-5; doc. 1-1 at 6. The complaint also includes names of individuals who allegedly wronged Brett but who are not named as defendants.

         As for relief, Brett requests injunctive relief against Mr. Man and his family for stalking Brett, and three million dollars from each defendant “because this case has gone for many years.” Doc. 1 at 5, 7. It is also not clear from the complaint what specific type of injunctive relief Brett seeks. See id.

         III. Discussion.

         A. Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints-Standard of Review.

         This Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints brought by plaintiffs given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Specifically, we are obliged to the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) which provides:

(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 that-
(A) the allegation of poverty is ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.