United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Elansari's most recent pro se initiative before
us involves suing his local police for not prosecuting an
Oregonian for conduct relating to their efforts to build a
website for an internet-based game. He also sues the
Oregonian and Paypal, Inc. for $44, 000 for violating
Pennsylvania criminal statutes. As he does in every one of
his cases dismissed as frivolous,  he again moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis because he cannot afford
to both sue and pay his monthly rent and food based on a
$1200 monthly income. Solely because he swears to qualifying for
pauper status, we grant Mr. Elansari leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we dismiss his Complaint as legally
frivolous as can not sue the police for deciding not to
prosecute over a civil dispute involving a failed joint
effort to develop a video game, and then sue the Oregonian
and Paypal for $44, 000 for violating Pennsylvania criminal
Alleged pro se facts.
Amro Elansari had an idea for an internet-based video game.
He met Shay Ramirez, who lives in Oregon, online and paid him
to develop certain aspects of the game. Mr. Elansari
purchased a domain name in connection with this project and
gave Mr. Ramirez access to the website. He paid Mr. Ramirez
no more than $110 for his services.Mr. Elansari alleges Mr.
Ramirez "kept swindeling [sic]" him by asking for
more money, which Mr. Elansari paid because he wanted the
project to be completed.
Ramirez completed the project but then told Mr. Elansari he
quit, all the files had been deleted, and he needed more
money. Mr. Elansari refused to pay more money, so Mr. Ramirez
wiped the server containing the information for the game and
replaced the content of the game's website with
"curse words and content not relevant to the
Elansari alleges Mr. Ramirez's conduct violates
Pennsylvania's criminal laws and reported Mr. Ramirez to
the police in Eugene, Oregon. Mr. Elansari learned he would
have to file a police report through Pennsylvania authorities
for action to be taken. Mr. Elansari then spoke with an
officer of the West Goshen Police Department in Pennsylvania
but was told his dispute with Mr. Ramirez was a civil matter
and the police would not be acting.
he can file here without paying the fees required by every
other citizen because he swears to be a pauper, Mr. Elansari
sued Mr. Ramirez, the West Goshen Police and two of its
officers (Officer Riley and Lt. Carrol), and Paypal, Inc. As
best as we can discern, Mr. Elansari made payments to Mr.
Ramirez using Paypal. He asserts civil rights claims against
the West Goshen Police and its officers for failure to
protect and claims against Mr. Ramirez and Paypal for
violation of Pennsylvania criminal law. Mr. Elansari
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
injunctive relief "in the form of having [his] website
restored to the status it was prior to the unauthorized
disruption." He also wants Mr. Ramirez to be prosecuted
for his alleged crimes.
grant Mr. Elansari leave to proceed in forma
pauperis as he is incapable of paying the fees to
commence this civil action. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), we must dismiss his Complaint if it is
frivolous. A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact, " and is
legally baseless if it is "based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory." As Mr. Elansari is proceeding
pro se, we construe his allegations
We dismiss federal claims against West Goshen Police and
Elansari sues his local police under our civil rights laws
for deciding not to prosecute Mr. Ramirez. "To state a
claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state
law." Mr. Elansari is essentially asserting a
due process claim based on a theory the police failed to
protect him from Mr. Ramirez or their failure to prosecute
Mr. Ramirez constitutes a state-created danger. "As a
general matter, ... a State's failure to protect an
individual against private violence simply does not
constitute a violation of the Due Process
"the benefit that a third party may receive from having
someone else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger
protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its
procedural nor in its 'substantive'
manifestations." In other words, "there is no
constitutional right to the investigation or prosecution of
another." There is no possible legal basis for Mr.
Elansari's claims against the West Goshen Police and its
officers based on his private dispute with Mr. Ramirez.
We dismiss Pennsylvania criminal statutory claims against Mr.
Ramirez and Paypal.
Elansari's claims against Mr. Ramirez and Paypal are
based on two Pennsylvania criminal statutes, 18 Pa. Cons.
Stat. §§ 7611, which criminalizes unlawful use of a
computer, and 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7612, ...