United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Picozzi, proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil
action against Sue McKeown, Frank McKeown, Terry McKeown,
Paddie Riley, and Francis Janson (identified in the caption
as Frais Janson). He has also filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Picozzi leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his
Complaint, Picozzi alleges that he was previously married to
Sue McKeown and that he fathered children with her whom she
hid from him. The Complaint also suggests that he had a child
or children with Paddie Riley, who likewise hid the children
from Picozzi. Picozzi alleges that he called Sue
McKeown's family and that “Frank this brother did
this stuff on T.V. to [him] that['s] how [he] found there
[sic] name out.” (Compl. ECF No. 2, at
Picozzi adds that “they did a lot of stuff on this T.V.
stuff with these kid must bug you house.”
section of the form Complaint that asks for a description of
any injuries, Picozzi alleges that “Sue dad did the
T.V. stuff to me it screw my thinking
up.” (Id. at 8.) He indicates that he
has been hurt by both women, that Sue's father was
“mean” to him, and that he wants the women to
speak with him. (Id.) In the section of the form
Complaint that asks for a description of any relief sought,
Picozzi alleges that he does not “know what monetary
compensation is.” (Id.)
also attached exhibits to his Complaint. One exhibit suggests
that Francis Janson is an attorney who Picozzi contacted
about his situation. (Id. at 10.) Included in the
exhibits are letters from Susan McKeown Beccaria (presumably
Sue McKeown) and a Theresa McKeown to Picozzi, in which they
requested that Picozzi cease and desist “any and all
communications” and informed him that if he attempted
to contact them again, they would report him to the police.
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. § 1915(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, to the extent Picozzi alleges that others are using
the television to affect his mind, his allegations appear to
be based on delusions or irrational thoughts. Accordingly,
the Court concludes that those allegations, and any claims
based on those allegations, are factually frivolous.
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 dismiss Picozzi's
Complaint. Any federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). As it appears that Picozzi cannot cure the
defects in his claims, he will not be permitted to file an