United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
ORDER OF COURT
Barry Fischer United States District Judge
NOW, this 11th day of May, 2018, upon
consideration of the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis filed by pro se Plaintiff Asia Johnson, (Docket No.
), and the accompanying Complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that said Motion  is GRANTED as to the In Forma Pauperis
Status of pro se Plaintiff Asia Johnson ONLY.
FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned matter is dismissed,
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as this action is
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
holding, the Court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
requires that a District Court review pleadings filed by
individuals who are granted in forma pauperis status and
mandates that “the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that … the action
… is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Therefore, pursuant to this
statute, the Court must dismiss a case “if it lacks
arguable merit in fact or law.” Stackhouse v.
Crocker, 266 F.App'x. 189 (2008) (citing Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104
L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)). The standard of review for failure to
state a claim under section 1915(e)(2) is the same as under
Rule 12(b)(6). See D'Agostino v. CECON RDEC,
2011 WL 2678876, at *3 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher
v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)). That
is, the allegations in a pro se plaintiff's complaint
must be liberally construed, see Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007), and
the Court must “accept all factual allegations in the
complaint as true, [and] construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff”, see Phillips v.
County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008).
However, a pro se complaint must be dismissed if it does not
allege “enough facts to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d
929 (2007); see also Capogrosso v. Rabner, 588 F.3d
180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 2009) (applying Twombly and
Iqbal standard to pro se complaints). Finally,
“if a complaint is subject to a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment
unless such an amendment would be inequitable or
futile.” Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245.
outset, it appears to the Court that this is one of several
lawsuits that Plaintiff Asia Johnson has attempted to pursue
against numerous individuals in the public eye in recent
months utilizing in forma paueris status. To this
end, the Hon. Arthur J. Schwab has dismissed suits brought
against Jacob Rothschild and Queen Elizabeth as frivolous and
denied her motion for in forma pauperis, as
moot. See Johnson v. Rothschild, Civ.
A. Nos. 18-495, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2018) and
Johnson v. Queen Elizabeth, Civ. A. No. 18-611,
Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. May 10, 2018). The present action is
purportedly brought against Clifford “T.I.”
Harris, who the Court understands is a famous musician.
Plaintiff has separately filed in forma pauperis
petitions seeking to initiate lawsuits against other
musicians including Beyonce Knowles Carter (Civ. A. No.
18-447); Rihanna (Civ. A. No. 18-448); and, Young Money (Civ.
A. No. 605).
respect to the instant case, the entirety of Plaintiff's
allegations against Mr. Harris state the following:
Roc Nation members took parts of my copywritten work I
exposed Ti on facebook for taking parts of my work and
helping Andrew Irvin fake his death after they stole from me.
He and Andrew was family he got paid for my stolen work to ti
and babe e from young money been having local music groups
harass me 2 days ago they put the gun beam on my mouth as I
was talking on facebook than last night ti confirmed it and
told me I better watch my mouth.
relief requested is simply “I just want it to
Court's estimation, Plaintiff's rambling and
incoherent Complaint lacks arguable merit in fact or law,
making it frivolous and subject to dismissal. Brookins v.
Cty. of Allegheny, 350 Fed.Appx. 639, 642 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112
118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (citations omitted)) (“A court
may discredit allegations that are ‘fanciful,
fantastic, and delusional' and thus may dismiss a
complaint as factually frivolous when the facts alleged
‘rise to the level of the irrational or wholly
incredible.'”). Additionally, insofar as Plaintiff
is attempting to sue Mr. Harris for copyright infringement, a
type of claim over which this Court has original
jurisdiction, see Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick,
__ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1241-42, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010),
she has not identified any specific work and has not pled
that such work has been registered with the U.S. Copyright
Office, which is a necessary prerequisite to initiating a
lawsuit for copyright infringement. See 17 U.S.C.
§ 411(a) (“no civil action for infringement of the
copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until
preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has
been made in accordance with this title.”); see
also Dawes-Lloyd v. Publish Am., LLLP, 441 Fed.Appx.
956, 957 (3d Cir. 2011) (“An action for infringement of
a copyright may not be brought until the copyright is
Plaintiff has not met her burden to demonstrate that this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over any state law
claims against Mr. Harris because, although the parties are
diverse, (Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania citizen and Mr. Harris
is a Georgia citizen), she has not pled that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000. See 28 U.S.C.
§1332(a) (“The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive
of interest and costs, and is between--(1) citizens of
different States”). Hence, any such claims would also
be subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
of these reasons, this matter is DISMISSED as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark ...