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.

Robinson v. Millbrand

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

May 11, 2018

MICHAEL ROBINSON, Plaintiff
v.
MILLBRAND, et al., Defendants

          BRANN, D.J.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          William I. Arbuckle, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Robinson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action by filing a Complaint against various City Council members and public officials in Shamokin, Pennsylvania (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). The civil cover sheet states that the cause of action is “quo warranto” under Pennsylvania law. Id. at 1. Plaintiff states that one of the Defendants, Joey Leschinski (“Leschinski”), has been appointed to the City's Landlord Tenant Dispute Board (the “Board”). (Doc. 1-2, p. 2). Plaintiff seems to suggest that he believes Leschinski to be a felon and a drug dealer. Id. Plaintiff argues that because “Article II, Section 7 of the PA Law” states that no felon should be elected or appointed to any position in any office of the government, Leschinski should be removed from the Board. Id.

         Plaintiff accompanied the Complaint with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). I RECOMMEND the IFP be GRANTED.

         Once granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Atamain v. Burns, 236 Fed.Appx. 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2007). Under this statute, the Court is required to dismiss any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 828 (10th Cir. 1979) (“[T]here is no constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and the valuable time of federal courts to prosecute an action which is totally without merit.”).

         After reviewing the Complaint, I RECOMMEND that the Complaint be DISMISSED for the reasons set forth below.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SCREENING IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINTS

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

(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 untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be ...

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.