United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MATT L. LOPER, Plaintiff
FEDERAL TAX, FEDERAL TAX RETURN, Defendant
PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
hereby recommended that the motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] be GRANTED. The Clerk
should 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) and
that Plaintiff be provided with an opportunity to amend his
complaint, consistent with the instructions herein.
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 Defendant as
“Federal Tax, Federal Tax Return.” ECF No. 1-2 at
2. He lists the Defendant's occupation as “Income
Tax Return” and the Defendant's address as
“United States of America.” The factual narrative
accompanying the complaint states only the following:
Plaintiff is injured, and wronged.
Plaintiff suffers harm, and serious emotional distress that
impairs the person's abilities to reasonably function.
Plaintiff asks the Court to Order in favor of Judgement in
the amount of $50, 000 dollars for each year since ...