Jolley v. State Of Delaware et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ORDER DISMISSING CASE as frivolous. Amendment of the complaint is futile (copy to pltf.) (CASE CLOSED). Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 4/24/13. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

RICHARD A. JOLLEY,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE, et aI.,
Defendants.

) Civ. No. 13-064-SLR
)
)
)

)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington

thisd-~ay of April, 2013, having screened the case pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915;
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff, who resides in New Castle, Delaware, proceeds pro
se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He alleges discrimination
against handicapped people of all races "since 1985." (D.1. 2) He also checked the box
for discrimination based upon religion. (ld. at,-r 10.)
2. 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) (in forma pauperis actions). 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 plaintiff 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).
3. 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)(8)(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); see, e.g.,
Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit

alleging that prison officials took an inmate's pen and refused to give it back).
4. The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on
Rule 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)(8)). 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 plaintiff 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).
5. A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell At!. Corp.

V.

Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007). The assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to

2

"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere
conclusory statements." Id. at 1949. 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 plaintiff
has a "plausible claim for relief."1 Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do
more than allege plaintiff'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)).
6. Discussion. Plaintiff alleges that for years he tried to get help and was
refused. Then he suffered a heart attack and spent three weeks in a coma.
Handicapped programs came in, apparently offered assistance, but plaintiff refused
housing and medical. Now, plaintiff has a cerebral aneurysm that "may pop any time,"
he is losing his house, and he does not qualify for programs. While not clear, plaintiff
seems to allege that an individual named Tobin in long term care stated that plaintiff is
1A 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

faking and he sent an email to all hearing officers. For relief plaintiff asks: "Freeze all
Section 8 and housing, state, city and county accounts even police (they can walk) no
pay to anyone for at least twenty year. No credit cards."
7. A pleading setting forth a claim for relief must contain a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R Civ. P. 8.
However, a court should dismiss a case, "if a pro se complaint is so confusing or
unintelligible that no party could possibly understand or reply to it." Cole v.
Commonwealth Federal, 1994 WL 618464, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (citing King v. Fayette
County, 92 F.RD. 457, 458 (W.O. Pa.1981); Brown v. Califano, 75 F.RD. 497 (D. D.C.

1977). The complaint is legally unintelligible in that makes no factual allegations, does
not name the individuals or agencies who allegedly discriminated against plaintiff,
appears to be time-barred, and the legal theory lacks an arguable basis in law. See
Troxelle v. United States, 319 F. App'x 176, 178 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (citing
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 327).

8. Plaintiff's complaint does not show that he is entitled to relief. Even given the
latitude accorded pro se pleadings, the filing is so devoid of any possible merit as to be
frivolous. Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(8)(i).
9. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(i). Amendment of the complaint is futile. The
clerk of court is directed to close the case.

UNITED ST TES DISTRICT JUDGE

4