United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
William I. Arbuckle, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
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.
accompanied the Complaint with a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). I RECOMMEND the IFP be
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
reviewing the Complaint, I RECOMMEND that the Complaint be
DISMISSED for the reasons set forth below.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SCREENING IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINTS
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 ...