Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Loper v. Federal Tax, Federal Tax Return

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

July 26, 2019

MATT L. LOPER, Plaintiff
v.
FEDERAL TAX, FEDERAL TAX RETURN, Defendant

          SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. RECOMMENDATION

         It is 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.

         It is 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.

         II. REPORT

         A. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

         Plaintiff 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.

         B. Assessment of Plaintiff's Complaint

         Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).[1] 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. 1999)).

         In his 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.