United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, JUDGE
Picozzi, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action
against Guy Peiagelee & Sons, Harry McKucking, Franny
Laffy, Ed Coreyel, Ed Coreyel, Jr., Joseph Biccala and Son,
Gerry Coganlen, Mike Jacab, Noll Orr, Bob Burns, and Rich
Gannon. He has also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will grant Picozzi leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and will dismiss his Complaint.
Complaint, Picozzi alleges that Harry McKucking tried to kill
him because he found out that McKucking had murdered his
daughter. (Compl. at 3.) He contends that McKucking had
Picozzi's ex-wife "drug [him] for years they killed
[him he] came back." (Id.) Picozzi then heard
"they [stole] over 150 million off of the state of PA
convention." (Id.) Subsequently,
"Carpenter top men where good friend with all the doctor
they had [Picozzi] beat up put stuff in [his] private part
[his] body where [he] can't have sex."
(Id.) Guy Peiagalee and his son stole a grave site
from Picozzi's family where "a little baby" was
buried. (Id.) Franny Laffy "was involved in a
murder of [Picozzi's] buddy Larry Sullivan, " and
she was also involved in what happened to Picozzi.
(Id.) Picozzi contends that these events occurred in
2011. (Id.) With respect to injuries, Picozzi claims
that he "can't have sex can't pee [right] it all
swelling up down there." (Id. at 4.) He has
"a sound in [his] head all day." (Id.) He
argues that he has called the carpenters' union 1, 000
times and that it hasn't called him back. (Id.)
As relief, Picozzi indicates that he "[doesn't] know
what monetary compensation is." (Id.)
has attached various exhibits to his Complaint, including
statements indicating that he was beaten up at an AA meeting
by five men and that he has filed a police complaint against
"Murphy." (Compl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 2-1, at 1.) He has
also attached a cease and desist letter from attorney Marc L.
Gelman of Jennings Sigmond, the office which represents the
Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters ("NRCC").
(Id. at 7.) That letter indicates that in 2017,
Picozzi, on a daily basis, had been calling NRCC offices in
Philadelphia and Syracuse to leave "numerous voicemails
of a senseless and outlandish nature." (Id.)
Gelman requested that Picozzi "immediately cease and
desist from engaging in such harassing conduct and refrain
from making any telephone calls to the NRCC absent those that
serve a legitimate business purpose." (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court will grant Picozzi leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears that he is not capable of
paying the fees necessary to commence this action.
Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)
require the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it is frivolous
or fails to state a claim. A complaint is frivolous if it
"lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It is
legally baseless if "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory, " Deutsch v. United States, 67
F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995), and factually baseless
"when the facts alleged rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
a complaint fails to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable
to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,
240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine
whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory
statements and naked assertions will not suffice.
Id. Moreover, "if the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). As
Picozzi is proceeding pro se, the Court construes
his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen.,
655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
outset, the Court notes that Picozzi's allegations rise
to the level of being delusional. Upon reading the Complaint,
the Court concludes that Picozzi's claims and allegations
are primarily based upon his own irrational, nonsensical
thoughts. For that reason, the Court will dismiss the
Complaint as factually frivolous.
Picozzi's Complaint asserted a non-frivolous claim for
relief, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the
Complaint. Picozzi indicates that the basis for this
Court's jurisdiction is federal question because the
Defendants "took 150 million off State of PA convention
center." (Compl. at 2.) If Picozzi is trying to bring
claims seeking the prosecution of those who allegedly took
this money, his claims are not cognizable. See Linda R.S.
v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) ("[A]
private citizen lacks ajudicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another."). Moreover,
to the extent Picozzi is asserting civil rights claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, nothing in the Complaint
suggests that the Defendants are state actors and that they
deprived Picozzi "of rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States." Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535
(1981); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988). The Complaint, as pled, simply fails to allege a
basis for federal question jurisdiction.
extent Picozzi intended to bring tort claims under
Pennsylvania law, there is no basis for jurisdiction over
those claims. The only independent basis for the Court's
jurisdiction over state law claims is pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), which grants a district court jurisdiction
over "all civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
States." Diversity jurisdiction requires "complete
diversity, " which in turn requires that "no
plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any
defendant." Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v.
Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, the
Complaint reflects that the parties are not completely
diverse. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss any state claims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Picozzi leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss his
Complaint. As it appears that Picozzi cannot cure the defects
in his claims, he will not be permitted to file an amended
complaint. See Grayson v. ...