United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
Plaintiff
Christian Nduka, Jr., proceeding pro se, has filed a
Complaint (ECF No. 2) and a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF No. 1). Because it appears that Nduka is
unable to afford to pay the filing fee, the Court will grant
him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the
following reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i).
I.
FACTS[1]
Plaintiff
alleges that he is a music producer of Nigerian heritage who
produces rap music for various unnamed rappers. (ECF No. 2 at
8.)[2]
In his Complaint he names several Defendants who are
well-known figures in the music industry. The essence of
Nduka's Complaint accuses these Defendants of a
broad-based conspiracy to hack Nduka's computer and
iPhone, threaten his life, view his personal information, and
ruin his name in the music industry. (Id. at 5.)
These allegations are premised on "[s]ubliminal
threats" made against him on social media platforms such
as Instagram and Twittter. Nduka asserts that "certain
people who weife either jealous of [his] success or taunting
[him] because of his Nigerian [h]eritage[, ]" have made
"multiple threats" against him "over the
internet[.]" Nduka alleges that he "came to the
conclusion that [his] phone had been hacked[.]"
Specifically, for example, Nduka claims that after he booked
various airline flights, Defendants began referencing the
locations of Nduka's upcoming flights, including a
planned trip to Jamaica. Nduka asserts that one of the
musician Defendants went so far as to create a new tour
called the "Assassination Vacation" tour which was
designed specifically to refer to Nduka's planned trip to
Jamaica.[3]
Nduka
alleges that he then received multiple threats about his
flight, including threats that someone was going to bomb his
plane or harm him after it landed. (Id. at 9.) Nduka
asserts that he continued capturing screenshots of the
"evidence" of this internet taunting which included
multiple "artists in the industry" affiliated with
Defendants who started referring to '"flights'
and 'Planes'" or their private jets.
(Id) Ultimately, Nduka canceled his trip to Jamaica,
and began booking "'Fake'" trips through
the internet website Expedia, only to find Defendants and
those affiliated with them, were allegedly referencing his
"fake" trips. (Id.) Nduka appears to
believe that these social media references to his
"fake" trips are evidence that his computer and
phone have been hacked and that the lives of other people are
in danger because Nduka lives close to multiple international
airports in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and New York
thai "could all be targeted." (Id.) Nduka
asserts that Defendants "have hacked [his] phone or know
about [his] Flights and also have access to [his] Banking
records, Phone Conversations, Text Messages, and Instagram
and Twitter accounts." (Id) This has led Nduka
to live in fear for his own safety and the safety of others
while flying commercially. (Id.) Nduka indicates
that he is, afraid to travel to cities where Defendants have
affiliates because they will know his location based on
whatever device they are hacking at that time. (Id.,
)
Nduka
seeks $500, 000 in compensation - the amount of money Nduka
assert$ he could have been making if Defendants had not
"ruined [his] name and blackballed [him] from the music
industry." (Id. at 6.) Additionally, Nduka
seeks compensation for the threats to his life and the lives
of others, and for the amount of money he has spent on new
iPhones, computers, and hardware since his devices were
hacked by Defendants. (Id.)
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The
Court will grant Nduka leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears that he • is incapable
of paying the fees to commence this civil action.
Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the
Court to dismiss the Complaint if, among other things, it is
frivolous. A complaint is subject to dismissal under §
l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous if h "lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), The use of the term
"frivolous" in § 1915 "embraces not only
the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful
factual allegation." Id. Section 1915 accords
judges "the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions; are clearly baseless[, ]"
including claims that describe "fantastic or delusional
scenarios[.]" Id. at 327. "[A] finding of
factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible[.]" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992). Because Nduka is proceeding pro se,
the Court must construe his allegations liberally. Higgs
v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
III.
DISCUSSION
Nduka's
allegations regarding the existence of a wide-reaching
conspiracy among various rappers, producers, and their
"affiliates" specifically designed to thwart his
success in the music industry by hacking devices and engaging
in a social media campaign to taunt Nduka are wholly
incredible, as demonstrated by the exhibits that Plaintiff
attaches to the Complaint. See Denton, 504 U.S. at
33. Although Plaintiff alleges he sent direct messages to one
Defendant, he does not allege that he ever received a reply.
Not a single post refers to him by name, or by any social
media usernames or handles Nduka claims as his own, or
directs any threat toward him. These posts appear to simply
be general posts about travels and locations made available
to the public and Defendants' social media followers.
Federal
courts routinely dismiss allegations regarding broad-based
conspiracies of computer hacking, surveillance, tracking, and
the like, as factually frivolous under § 1915 where
these allegations are fanciful, fantastic, delusional,
irrational, or wholly incredible. See, e.g., Johnson v
Young Money, 745 Fed.Appx. 441, 442 (3d Cir. 2018)
(affirming dismissal of complaint as fanciful or delusional
where it alleged that musicians were making music about and
harassing the plaintiff); Barnes-Velez v. Fed.
Commc'n Comm `n, Civ. A. No. 18-634, 2018 WL
4178196, at * 1-3 (M.D. Fla. May 8, 2018), report and
recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4153937 (M.D. Fla. Aug.
30, 2018) (dismissing pro se plaintiffs complaint as
frivolous under § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i) and concluding that
the complaint made "fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional" allegations against the FCC, the FBI, and
the NSA asserting that defendants wiretapped plaintiffs home,
including her cell phone and home phone, illegally hacked her
computer and tablet, installed cameras in her home, tampered
with her mail, and disclosed the information obtained from
these efforts to third parties); Morgan v Unknown FBI
Agents, Civ. A. No. 16- 495, 2016 WL 11586214, at *2-3
(W.D. Tx. May 3, 2016), report and recommendation
adopted, 2016 WL 11586213 (W.D. Tx. May 31, 2016)
(concluding that dismissal as frivolous was warranted under
§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i) because pro se plaintiffs
"Complaint [was] paranoid and delusional. .. [where]
[s]he believe[d] that government agents [were] following her,
hacking her computer, spying on her with a camera at her
home, and implanting devices in her body."); Riches
v. Swartz, Civ. A. No. 07-379, 2007 WL 2319819, at *l-2
(W.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2007) (finding pro se plaintiffs
allegations that defendants violated his rights by, among
other things, hacking his computer, illegally wiretapping
him, phishing, spamming, and code cracking were "clearly
fantastic" and dismissing his § 1983 claims as
frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B!)(i)); cƒ
Campbell v Brender, Civ. A. No. 10-325,
2010 WL 4363396, at *2, 4-5 (N.D. Tx. Oct. 25, 2010)
(invoking the court's inherent authority and finding pro
se plaintiffs claims against two technology
companies, federal judges, the Clerk of Court, several
lawyers, and a law firm were "precisely the sort of
fanciful, delusional claims that merit dismissal" where
plaintiff alleged that the companies "conspired with the
other defendants to hack into her home computer and certain
public library computers" and that the defendants more
broadly "conspired to defeat her [prior] employment suit
by falsifying court records, burglarizing her home to steal
files, hacking into multiple computers, committing mail
fraud, obstructing justice, and engaging in
racketeering."); see also Hughes v
Whitlock, Civ. A. No. 07-1582, 2007 WL 3026910, at
*l (E.D. Mo. Oct. 16, 2007) (granting defendant's Rule
12(b)(6) motion and finding the complaint was "obviously
delusional" where pro se plaintiff alleged his
neighbors were conducting surveillance on him and hacking his
computers on behalf of the United States government).
Reading
the Complaint and the exhibits attached thereto, it is
apparent that Nduka's allegations are primarily based
upon his own assumptions that generalized references to
planes, flights, or jets are meant as personal threats on his
life should he board a commercial flight. His allegations of
hacking are generalized and conclusory, and Nduka's
allegations that his computer or iPhone have been hacked are
wholly speculative. (See ECF No. 2 at 9) (alleging
that Nduka isi "afraid to travel. . . because of
[Defendants] having my location in their hands via whatever
device they are hacking me with. I am unaware of how much
they know and how they got this information.") For these
reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint as factually
frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i). Because amendment would be futile, the
Court will not grant leave to amend. See Johnson,
745 Fed.Appx. at 442.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the
foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Nduka leave to
proceed in forma pauperis' and dismiss his
Complaint. All claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. ยง ...