Brett v. ING Financial Partners et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 10/4/12. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FRANK BRETT, Plaintiff, v. INO FINANCIAL PARTNERS, et aI., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civ. Action No. 12-807-0MS ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM The plaintiff, Frank Brett ("Brett"), filed this lawsuit on June 22 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.5.) 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 pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and alleges discrimination by reason of religion. Brett alleges that the defendants have kept him from obtaining a new job for the past five years. He further alleges that the defendants took this alleged action "to cover up their crimes against [him] so that they could not be prosecuted." (DJ.4.) Brett seeks injunctive relief. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain informa 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 ofAllegheny, 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. Mayview 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 ofa 2 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 21 L 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 "[WJhere 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)). III. DISCUSSION Brett alleges discriminatory by reason of religion occurred when he used a computer at the Penn Wynne Library to apply for a job at McDonald's, the computer was "making mistakes," a man next to him was communicating with INO Investments, Penn Wynne Library employees "messed with the computer", and people from Presbyterian Church, located next door, "were involved." 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). IA 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 3 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). 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 ofReading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976). IV. CONCLUSION The court will dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 ofReading, 532 F.2d 950,951-52 (3d Cir. 1976). An appropriate order will be entered. () 01 i ,2012 Wilmington, Delaware 4