DiMatteo v. Miller et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM -Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 11/4/2015.(aah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DEBORAH K. DIMATTEO,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No. 15-677-SLR
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM

1. Introduction. Plaintiff Deborah K. DiMatteo ("plaintiff') proceeds prose and
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. She filed this lawsuit on August
5, 2015 alleging harassment. Plaintiff filed an almost identical lawsuit on December 29,
2014, dismissed as frivolous on January 30, 2015. (See Civ. No. 14-1521-SLR at D.I.
11 12)
J

2. Standard of Review. A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726
F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013). 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, her pleading is liberally construed and
her 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)(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); see, e.g.,
Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995).
4. 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
Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscherv. 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 plaintiff leave to amend her complaint unless
amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293
F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
5. A complaint may be dismissed only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations
in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a
court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief."

Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). Though "detailed factual
allegations" are not required, a complaint must do more than simply provide "labels and
conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Davis v.

Abington Mem'I Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at

2

555). In addition, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has
substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, _U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347
(2014); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint may not
dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim
asserted. See Johnson 135 S.Ct. at 346.
6. To determine whether a complaint meets the pleading standard as set forth in
Twombly and Iqbal, the Court must: (1) outline the elements a plaintiff must plead to a
state a claim for relief; (2) peel away those allegations that are no more than
conclusions and thus not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) look for well-pied
factual allegations, assume their veracity, and then "determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief." Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 365 (3d Cir. 2012)
(internal citations omitted) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Argueta v. United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 643 F.3d 60, 73 (3d Cir. 2011 )). The last step
is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
7. Discussion. The court recited the facts in detail in Civ. No. 14-1521-SLR at
D.I. 11. The court sees no need to again recite the facts given that the allegations in the
instant case and Civ. No. 14-1521-SLR are almost identical.
8. Pleading deficiency. Similar to Civ. No. 14-1521-SLR, the complaint fails to
meet the pleading requirements of Iqbal and Twombly. For example, the complaint
does not provide adequate facts to allow the court to discern the specific events or
circumstances giving rise to plaintiff's claims. The facts do not point to harassment by
any defendant. Instead, plaintiff complains that individuals did not respond to her
complaints and she had an incident with a police car that caused her to swerve and it

3

frightened her. Having carefully reviewed plaintiff's allegations, the court finds her
claims frivolous, fanciful, and without any basis in law. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
9. In addition, Civ. No. 14-1521-SLR was dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(8)(i). A dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute for frivolousness
carries preclusive effect for purposes of any future in forma pauperis actions. See
Shockley v. Hosterman, 279 F. App'x 98, 99 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing
Cieszkowska v. Gray Line New York, 295 F.3d 204, 205-06 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam)
(quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992) (dismissal under§ 1915(e)
"could ... have a res judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future in forma
pauperis petitions")).
9. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will dismiss the complaint as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court finds amendment futile. A
separate order shall issue.

Date: November_±_, 2015

4