United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MATT L. LOPER, Plaintiff
SHEILS LAW ASSOCIATES P.C., Defendant
PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
hereby recommended that the motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] be GRANTED, and the
Clerk be ordered to docket the Complaint.
further recommended that this action be dismissed as legally
frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The
Clerk of Courts should be directed to close this case.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
Matt L. Loper (“Plaintiff”), an inmate
incarcerated at the Crawford County Correctional Facility,
initiated this pro se civil rights action by filing
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In
his motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to pay the
filing fee associated with this case. Based upon this
averment, it appears that Plaintiff is without sufficient
funds to pay the costs and fees of the proceedings.
Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis should be granted.
Assessment of Plaintiff's Complaint
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). Among other things, that statute requires
the Court to dismiss any action in which 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); Muchler v.
Greenwald, 624 Fed.Appx. 794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). A
frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an
indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant
enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions
which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario
described is fanciful or delusional). Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as
to whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted is governed by the same standard
applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D'Agostino v. CECOM
RDEC, 436 Fed.Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.
proposed complaint, Plaintiff identifies the lone defendant,
Shiels Law Associates, as the attorney for another entity,
Community Bank, N.A., in a legal action pending in the Court
of Common Pleas of Beaver County. ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 2-3.
According to Plaintiff, he entered into a “Retail
Installment, and Security Agreement” on June 12, 2015,
and received “a sum amount of money of
$18984.24.” Id. ¶¶ 6-7. On December
2, 2016, Community Bank filed a complaint against Plaintiff
in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County and requested a
“bad judgment.” Id. ¶¶ 8-9. A
“praecipe to discontinue without prejudice” was
filed in that action on June 17, 2019, and granted on June
17, 2019. Id. ¶ 12. Although the remainder of
his complaint is somewhat incoherent, Plaintiff appears to
contend that the litigation in Beaver County implicated
“Federal question cases relating data” and
violated unspecified federal statutes. Id. ¶
16; ECF No. 1-1 at 5.
separate document titled “FEDERAL JURISDICTION, ”
Plaintiff offers the following statements in further support
of his claim:
assessed are “Total Owner, ” and “Total
Ownership, ” of Community Bank, N.A., with total monies
awarded to in favor of Judgment Matt L. Loper, Pro Se,
Litigant, in the amount of “Total Owner, ...