United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Barry Fischer United States District Judge
NOW, this 11th day of July, 2019, upon
consideration of the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis filed by pro se Plaintiff Asia Johnson, (Docket No.
), and the accompanying Complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that said Motion  is GRANTED as to the In Forma Pauperis
Status of pro se Plaintiff Asia Johnson ONLY.
FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned matter is dismissed,
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as this action is
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
holding, the Court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
requires that a District Court review pleadings filed by
individuals who are granted in forma pauperis status and
mandates that “the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that … the action
… is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Therefore, pursuant to this
statute, the Court must dismiss a case “if it lacks
arguable merit in fact or law.” Stackhouse v.
Crocker, 266 F.App'x. 189 (2008) (citing Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104
L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)). The standard of review for failure to
state a claim under section 1915(e)(2) is the same as under
Rule 12(b)(6). See D'Agostino v. CECON RDEC,
2011 WL 2678876, at *3 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher
v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)). That
is, the allegations in a pro se plaintiff's complaint
must be liberally construed, see Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007), and
the Court must “accept all factual allegations in the
complaint as true, [and] construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, ” see Phillips v.
County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008).
However, a pro se complaint must be dismissed if it does not
allege “enough facts to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d
929 (2007); see also Capogrosso v. Rabner, 588 F.3d
180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 2009) (applying Twombly and
Iqbal standard to pro se complaints). Finally,
“if a complaint is subject to a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment
unless such an amendment would be inequitable or
futile.” Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245. As with
several of Plaintiff's prior lawsuits dismissed by this
Court,  and this Court's colleagues,
Plaintiff's rambling and incoherent Complaint alleging
unspecified “human rights” violations against
“Beyonce Jayz Carter” lacks arguable merit in
fact or law, making it frivolous and subject to dismissal.
Brookins v. Cty. of Allegheny, 350 Fed.Appx. 639,
642 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992)
(citations omitted)) (“A court may discredit
allegations that are ‘fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional' and thus may dismiss a complaint as factually
frivolous when the facts alleged ‘rise to the level of
the irrational or wholly incredible.'”); see
Johnson, 745 Fed.Appx. at 446 (“After reviewing
Johnson's filings in the District Court and on appeal, we
agree that the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and
fact, and we therefore conclude that the District Court
correctly dismissed the complaint pursuant to §
1915(e)(2)(B).”). It is also clear that leave to amend
would be futile. Id.
of these reasons, this matter is DISMISSED as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this action
 See e.g., Johnson v.
Trump, Civ. A. No. 18-970, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. Jul.
25, 2018), aff'd 745 Fed.Appx. 445 (3d Cir.
2018); Johnson v. Queen Elizabeth, Civ. A. No.
19-566, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2019); Johnson v.
Supreme Court, Civ. A. No. 19-566, Docket No. 2 (W.D.
Pa. May 14, 2019); Johnson v. Resolve, Civ. A. No.
19-609, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. May 28, 2019); Johnson v.
Harris, Civ. A. No. 18-610, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. May 11,
2018), aff'd, Appeal No. 18-2329 (3d Cir.
See e.g., Johnson v.
Powhatan, 747 Fed.Appx. 110 (3d Cir. 2019); Johnson
v. Wylie, 733 Fed.Appx. 31 (3d Cir. 2018; Johnson v.
Rothschild, 731 Fed.Appx. 87 (3d Cir. 2018); Johnson
v. Young Money, 745 Fed.Appx. 441 (3d Cir. 2018);