United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Barry Fischer, Judge
NOW, this 14th day of August, 2019, upon
consideration of the Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis filed by pro se Plaintiff Asia Johnson, (Civ. A.
Nos. 19-994, 19-995, Docket Nos. ), and the accompanying
Complaints filed at each case number, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that said Motions  are GRANTED as to the In Forma Pauperis
Status of pro se Plaintiff Asia Johnson ONLY.
FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned matters are
dismissed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as these
actions are frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
holding, the Court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
requires that a District Court review pleadings filed by
individuals who are granted in forma pauperis status and
mandates that “the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if 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). Therefore, pursuant to this
statute, the Court must dismiss a case “if it lacks
arguable merit in fact or law.” Stackhouse v.
Crocker, 266 F.App'x. 189 (2008) (citing Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104
L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)). The standard of review for failure to
state a claim under section 1915(e)(2) is the same as under
Rule 12(b)(6). See D'Agostino v. CECON RDEC,
2011 WL 2678876, at *3 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher
v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)). That
is, the allegations in a pro se plaintiff's complaint
must be liberally construed, see Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007), and
the Court must “accept all factual allegations in the
complaint as true, [and] construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, ” see Phillips v.
County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008).
However, a pro se complaint must be dismissed if it does not
allege “enough facts to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d
929 (2007); see also Capogrosso v. Rabner, 588 F.3d
180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 2009) (applying Twombly and
Iqbal standard to pro se complaints). Finally,
“if a complaint is subject to a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment
unless such an amendment would be inequitable or
futile.” Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245.
several of Plaintiff's prior lawsuits dismissed by this
Court,  and this Court's colleagues,
Plaintiff's rambling and incoherent Complaints alleging
unspecified “civil rights” and
“constitutional crisis” violations against Boris
Johnson, Queen Elizabeth, and Jacob Rothschild and her
“civil right the whole constitution” and
“civil rights war” violations against Donald
Trump, lack arguable merit in fact or law, making them all
frivolous and subject to dismissal. Brookins v. Cty. of
Allegheny, 350 Fed.Appx. 639, 642 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112
S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (citations omitted))
(“A court may discredit allegations that are
‘fanciful, fantastic, and delusional' and thus may
dismiss a complaint as factually frivolous when the facts
alleged ‘rise to the level of the irrational or wholly
incredible.'”); see Johnson, 745 Fed.Appx.
at 446 (“After reviewing Johnson's filings in the
District Court and on appeal, we agree that the complaint
lacks an arguable basis in law and fact, and we therefore
conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed the
complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).”). It is
also clear that leave to amend would be futile. Id.
of these reasons, these matters are DISMISSED as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark each of
these cases CLOSED.
 See e.g., Johnson v.
Trump, Civ. A. No. 18-970, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. Jul.
25, 2018), aff'd 745 Fed.Appx. 445 (3d Cir.
2018); Johnson v. Queen Elizabeth, Civ. A. No.
19-566, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2019); Johnson v.
Supreme Court, Civ. A. No. 19-566, Docket No. 2 (W.D.
Pa. May 14, 2019); Johnson v. Resolve, Civ. A. No.
19-609, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. May 28, 2019); Johnson v.
Harris, Civ. A. No. 18-610, Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. May
11, 2018), aff'd, Appeal No. 18-2329 (3d Cir.
2019); Johnson v. Beyonce Jayz, Civ. A. No. 19-813,
Docket No. 2 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 11, 2019).
See e.g., Johnson v.
Powhatan, 747 Fed.Appx. 110 (3d Cir. 2019); Johnson
v. Wylie, 733 Fed.Appx. 31 (3d Cir. 2018; Johnson v.
Rothschild, 731 Fed.Appx. 87 (3d Cir. 2018); Johnson
v. Young Money, 745 Fed.Appx. 441 (3d Cir. 2018);
Johnson v. Lowery, 745 Fed.Appx. 442 (3d Cir. 2018);
Johnson v. ...