United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Flowers Conti Chief United States District Judge.
Asia Johnson, pro se, filed an “Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,
” (ECF No. 1), with an attached complaint that purports
to sue Christopher Wylie, Aleksandr Kogan, John Bolton and
Cambridge Analytica and contains rather disjointed averments.
Attached to the complaint is a copy of correspondence dated
February 2, 2018 indicating that it is from Michael Glassner,
Executive Director of Trump Make America Great Again
Committee, to plaintiff requesting that she complete a
questionnaire and make a contribution to the committee. (ECF
No. 3-1). Also attached to the complaint is what appears to
be a March 2, 2018 letter from President Donald J. Trump
requesting a contribution to his reelection campaign and
indicating that by making such a contribution plaintiff would
be placed on a Presidential Honor Roll. (ECF No. 3-2).
court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis based on her showing of indigence. Gray v.
Martinez, 352 Fed.Appx. 656, 658 (3d Cir. 2009)
(indicating that in “this Circuit, . . . if [the court]
is convinced that [plaintiff] is unable to pay the court
costs and filing fees, the court will grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis . . . [and] thereafter considers
the separate question whether the complaint should be
dismissed.”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),
prior to ordering service of the complaint without payment of
the filing fee, however, the court must dismiss the case if
it determines that the action is “frivolous or
malicious, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), or
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Roman v.
Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 195 (“the appropriate time
to make a decision to dismiss a case pursuant to § 1915
is before service of a complaint).
purpose of the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, is to assure equal and meaningful access to the
courts for indigent litigants. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 324, 329 (1989). Congress also provided in the
in forma pauperis statute for dismissal of
complaints under certain circumstances in order to
“prevent abusive or captious litigation” that
could result because a plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis does not have the economic incentive ordinarily
created by otherwise required filing fees and costs to
refrain from filing frivolous, malicious or repetitive
lawsuits. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324.
complaint filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis
statute is subject to preservice dismissal under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it is based upon indisputably
meritless legal theory or factual assertions that are clearly
baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. In determining
whether the factual assertions are clearly baseless, and the
complaint therefore is frivolous, the court may pierce the
veil of the complaint and need not accept its allegations as
true. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Examples of baseless claims include “claims describing
fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal
district judges are all too familiar.” 490 U.S. at 328.
Additionally, as provided for expressly by §
1915(e)(2)(ii), the court also must dismiss the complaint if
it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted,
which is the same standard for dismissing a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Scheib v.
Butcher, Civ. Act. No. 14-cv-1247, 2014 WL 4851902, at *
1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2014).
complaint indicates that the action is brought pursuant to
the “1 Amendment” and “Royal Law.”
(ECF No. 3 at 4). It lists the names of the defendants in the
caption and in the section requesting identification of the
defendants, (ECF No. 3 at 1-3), but does not provide their
addresses or further mention them anywhere in the complaint.
With respect to the amount in controversy, the complaint
states “How much I lost I was honored by the President
and my facebook data was giving out.” (ECF No. 3 at 5).
The statement of her claims is that: “2016 my facebook
was took with only police access all my information was
exposed my address my phone number for me and my family
photos of us my son and I ID was exposed.” (ECF No. 3
at 6). Finally, with respect to relief the complaint states
only that plaintiff seeks from defendants “facebook
data.” (ECF No. 3 at 6).
upon review of the complaint, the court determines that the
claims presented and relief sought by plaintiff are based on
a fantastic or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke,
490 at 327-328. Ordinarily, upon dismissing a complaint a
court must grant plaintiff the opportunity to amend, if
amendment can cure the deficiencies in the complaint. Where,
however, amendment cannot cure the deficiencies, such as
where the complaint is frivolous under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court may dismiss the complaint with
prejudice without leave to amend. Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112-113 (3d Cir. 2002)
(“[D]ismissals of frivolous claims do not require leave
to amend.”). Based upon the court's determination
that the complaint is frivolous, it will dismiss the
complaint without leave to amend.
appropriate order follows.
 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) was formerly
codified at § 1915(d).
 On May 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a
completed Washington state form RCW 4.28.100 motion for
service by mail. (ECF No. 4). As a result of the court's
determination that it will dismiss the complaint as