United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MATT L. LOPER, Plaintiff
DONALD TRUMP, UNITED STATES OFAMERICA, and U.S. ATTORNEY, 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).
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.
respect to the instant case, Plaintiff identifies the
Defendants as President Donald Trump, “U.S. Attorney,
” and the United States of America. ECF No. 1-5. He
states that the following federal laws were violated:
“Other Personal Injury, Hush Money, Personal Injury,
United States of America Injury, Hush Money.”
Id. at 2. The factual narrative accompanying the
complaint states only the following:
Plaintiff claims the Defendant owes Demand of $72, 000
dollars in the amount of, for the full amount.
Plaintiff claims $72, 000 dollars with claims that Hush Money
is still owed to Stephanie Clifford,  and Demand for each ...