United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DANA W. WILEY, a/k/a/ Ghetto.D Plaintiff,
CEO OF SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, MICHAEL JACKSON and ROBB, UNIVERSAL MUSIC CEO, LUCIEN GRAINGE, COLUMBIA RECORDS CEO, PHARRELL WILLIAMS, HOLLYWOOD RECORDS CEO, MICHAEL EISNER, VIRGIN RECORDS CEO, RICHARD BRANSON, WARNERS BROTHERS CEO, KEVIN TSUJIHARA, Defendants.
FLOWERS CONTI SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is an “Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ” (ECF
No. 1), filed pro se by plaintiff Dana W. Wiley
(“Wiley”). Attached to the motion is a pro se
complaint that purports to sue the CEOs of numerous record
companies. The allegations are nonsensical, rambling and
difficult to comprehend. Wiley alleges copyright
infringement, breach of contract and a failure to pay
royalties. Wiley seeks damages of $7 billion, $780 billion,
and return of a check from Pablo Escobar for $75 million. The
exhibits to the complaint include correspondence with various
government agencies, a decision from a federal district court
that Wiley was not competent to stand trial, and an EEOC
court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis based on his showing of indigence. Gray v.
Martinez, 352 Fed.Appx. 656, 658 (3d Cir. 2009)
(indicating that in “this Circuit, . . . if [the court]
is convinced that [plaintiff] is unable to pay the court
costs and filing fees, the court will grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis . . . [and] thereafter considers
the separate question whether the complaint should be
dismissed.”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),
prior to ordering service of the complaint without payment of
the filing fee, however, the court must dismiss the case if
it determines that the action is “frivolous or
malicious, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), or
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Roman v.
Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 195 (“the appropriate time
to make a decision to dismiss a case pursuant to § 1915
is before service of a complaint).
purpose of the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, is to assure equal and meaningful access to the
courts for indigent litigants. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 324, 329 (1989). Congress also provided in the
in forma pauperis statute for dismissal of
complaints under certain circumstances in order to
“prevent abusive or captious litigation” that
could result because a plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis does not have the economic incentive ordinarily
created by otherwise required filing fees and costs to
refrain from filing frivolous, malicious or repetitive
lawsuits. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324.
complaint filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis
statute is subject to preservice dismissal under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it is based upon indisputably
meritless legal theory or factual assertions that are clearly
baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. In determining
whether the factual assertions are clearly baseless, and the
complaint therefore is frivolous, the court may pierce the
veil of the complaint and need not accept its allegations as
true. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Examples of baseless claims include “claims describing
fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal
district judges are all too familiar.” 490 U.S. at 328.
Additionally, as provided for expressly by §
1915(e)(2)(ii), the court also must dismiss the complaint if
it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted,
which is the same standard for dismissing a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Scheib v.
Butcher, Civ. Act. No. 14-cv-1247, 2014 WL 4851902, at *
1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2014).
complaint appears to arise out of a shooting and armed
robbery in 1994. Complaint ¶ 3. Defendants allegedly
knew that Easy E was promoting Wiley's
“3rd world power album” before and
after Wiley was placed in George Junior Juvenile Detention
Center in 1994. Complaint ¶ 4. The complaint alleges
various interactions with FBI/CIA agents regarding a $75
million check from Pablo Escobar, and fanciful and disjointed
allegations about encounters with various famous people.
Other than the conclusory statement that “these
defendant's ceo of sony music entertainment Michael
Jackson et, al knew” about these events, there are no
averments that any of the named defendants engaged in any
specific conduct with respect to Wiley. As best the court can
decipher, Wiley believes that female hip hop artists were
using his songs and a comic book character (Joe the Frog)
without paying him appropriate royalties, and defendants were
aware that Wiley was mentally incompetent when he filed his
prior copyright lawsuit. Complaint ¶¶ 24-34. Wiley
asks the court to order defendants to, among other things,
subpoena the U.S. Treasury to pay Wiley $780 billion for the
Pablo Escobar check, donate billions of dollars to veterans
and victims of the 9/11 attack, arrange an interview with
Oprah, issue subpoenas on four presidential administrations
and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and provide a copy of
his presidential pardon.
upon review of the complaint, the court determines that the
claims presented and relief sought by plaintiff are based on
a fantastic or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 327-328. Ordinarily, upon dismissing a complaint
a court must grant plaintiff the opportunity to amend, if
amendment can cure the deficiencies in the complaint. Where,
however, amendment cannot cure the deficiencies, such as
where the complaint is frivolous under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court may dismiss the complaint with
prejudice without leave to amend. Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112-113 (3d Cir. 2002)
(“[D]ismissals of frivolous claims do not require leave
to amend.”). Wiley's complaint appears to be based
on events that occurred long ago, which would be barred by
the statute of limitations. Based upon the court's
determination that the complaint is frivolous and amendment
would be futile, it will dismiss the complaint without leave
appropriate order follows.
 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) was formerly
codified at § ...