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. Trump

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

July 26, 2019

MATT L. LOPER, Plaintiff
v.
DONALD TRUMP, UNITED STATES OFAMERICA, and U.S. ATTORNEY, 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).

         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)).

         With 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, [2] and Demand for each ...

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.