Summary
directing Brett to show cause "why he should not be enjoined from filing any complaint, lawsuit, or petition for writ of mandamus, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware regarding or relating to alleged violations of his civil rights by reason of religion and/or sex and slander including, but not limited to, actions against unknown individuals"
Summary of this case from Brett v. U.S. Customs Marlon MollerOpinion
Civ. Action No. 12-1516-GMS
04-23-2013
FRANK BRETT, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN BLACK WOMAN JOGGER, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Frank Brett ("Brett"), filed this lawsuit on November 21, 2012. (D.I. 4.) He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 6.) The court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
I. BACKGROUND
Brett, who resides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed this case for discrimination based upon religion, Brett alleges that he was: (1) slandered by a black woman jogger ("the defendant") and her friends when they stated that he was a "retarded Catholic man;" (2) the defendant invaded his privacy on November 21, 2012 when she jogged passed him and stated, "good morning;" and (3) the defendant was "trying to steal [his] civil rights which is criminal." (D.I. 4.) Brett seeks one million dollars in compensatory damages.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff, Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Brett proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must grant Brett leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. May view State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Id. at 678. When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court conducts a two-part analysis. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and legal elements of a claim are separated. Id. The court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Id. at 210-11. Second, the court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that Brett has a "plausible claim for relief." Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege Brett's entitlement to relief; rather it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. Id. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
A claim is facially plausible when its factual content allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Brett alleges discrimination by reason of religion but does not identify the religion he practices, although he alleges that he was referred to as a Catholic. In addition, it is unclear where the alleged discrimination occurred. While there are other allegations, they do not refer to the defendant. After thoroughly reviewing the complaint, the court draws on its judicial experience and common sense and finds that the allegations are not plausible on their face. Indeed, the complaint consists of fantastical or delusional claims that are clearly baseless and they are insufficient to withstand this court's evaluation for frivolity dismissal. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Because the court finds the allegations the complaint wholly lacking in both terms of credibility and rationality, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In light of the nature of Brett's claims, the court finds that amendment would be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004); Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976).
IV. SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff has engaged in filing numerous lawsuits that contain frivolous legal arguments and that are vexatious and abusive of the judicial process. Since April 27, 2011, Plaintiff has filed the following lawsuits in this District, alleging violations of his civil rights by reason of religion and/or sex and, on occasion, slander, as follows: Brett v. Watson, Civ. No. 11-376-GMS; Brett v. Fed Ex Office and Employees, Civ. No. 11-780-GMS; Brett v. Wright, Civ. No. 12-706-GMS; Brett v. ING Financial Partners, Civ. No. 12-807-GMS; Brett v. Unknown Brother, Civ. No. 12-1350-GMS; Brett v. Unknown Black Woman Jogger, Civ. No. 12-1516-GMS; and Brett v. Unknown Latin American Man, Civ. No. 12-1751-GMS. These lawsuits were filed against numerous known and unknown individuals. With the exception of one, all cases have been screened by the court, and all the screened cases were frivolous.
Because of Brett's vexatious litigious actions, this Court has the power to enjoin him from filing meritless pleadings where the pleadings raise issues identical or similar to those that have already been adjudicated. 28 U.S.C. § 1651; See Matter of Packer Ave. Assoc., 884 F.2d 745, 747 (3d Cir. 1989); Yadav v. Surtees, 87 F. App'x 271 (3d Cir. 2004) (unpublished). Brett has engaged in filing meritless pleadings raising identical or similar issues to those previously adjudicated.
For the above reasons, Brett will be ordered to shall show cause, in writing, why he should not be enjoined from filing any complaint, lawsuit, or petition for writ of mandamus, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware regarding or relating to alleged violations of his civil rights by reason of religion and/or sex and slander including, but not limited to, actions against unknown individuals.
V. CONCLUSION
The court will dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Amendment of the complaint would be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004); Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976). Brett will be ordered to show cause why he should not be enjoined from filing actions regarding or related to alleged violations of his civil rights by reason of religion and/or sex and slander including, but not limited to, actions against unknown individuals.
An appropriate order will be entered.
______________________
CHIEF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 23, 2013
Wilmington, Delaware