United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MATT L. LOPER, Plaintiff
OTHER PERSONAL INJURY, et al., Defendants
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.
proposed complaint, Plaintiff identifies the following
Defendants: “Other Personal Injury, Airline Product
Liability, Airplane Torts, Air, Air Rights, Air Rights
(Damaged).” ECF No. 1-2 at 1. Although it might seem
that Plaintiff mistakenly entered causes of action onto the
civil complaint form where he should have written the names
of the Defendants, this does not appear to be the case;
Plaintiff reiterates those same Defendants throughout his
complaint. See id. at 1 (listing
“Defendants” as “Air, Air Rights, Air
Rights (Damaged), Other Personal Injury, Airplane Product
Liability, Airplane Torts”); id. at 4 (naming
“Defendants” as “Airplane, Liability, Torts
Other Personal Injury, Air Rights, Air, Air Rights”).
In response to a query on the form complaint asking him to
name each person involved and what that person did, he lists
the following: “Random Unknown Pilot, Co Pilot; Other
random personal position; Other random person; Other random
person.” Id. at 2. He states that the
following federal laws were violated: “Other Personal
Injury, Airplane Air Damage, Air Rights.” Id.
Plaintiff seeks, by way of relief, “assessed value in
the amount of full value of each Damaged Air Right appraised
at current value.” Id. at 3. No. factual
averments appear anywhere in his submissions.
Court's estimation, Plaintiff's incoherent and
fanciful “complaint” lacks any arguable basis in
law or fact, rendering it frivolous and subject to summary
dismissal. Although Plaintiff asserts federal question
jurisdiction, he has failed to cite any federal statutory
provision or constitutional amendment that might form the
basis for federal jurisdiction. He has not identified any
proper defendants or attempted to outline his claims in even
the most rudimentary form. The remainder of his averments are
incoherent and delusional. See Brookins v Cty. of
Allegheny, 350 Fed.Appx. 639, 642 (3d Cir. 2009)
(“A court may discredit allegations that are
‘fanciful, fantastic, and delusional' and thus
dismiss a complaint as factually frivolous when the facts
alleged ‘rise to the level of the irrational or wholly
incredible.'”) (quoting Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (citations omitted).
Moreover, given the nature of these pleadings, the Court
finds that they are incapable of being cured by amendment.
See, e.g., Johnson v. Trump, 745
Fed.Appx. 445 (3d Cir. 2018) (affirming the district
court's determination that leave to amend would be
futile, despite the general rule in favor of curative
amendments, where the allegations at issue were fanciful,
fantastic, or delusional); Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that that
the motion for leave to proceed in ...