Brett v. Wheeler et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 2/8/16. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

FRANK BRETT,
Plaintiff,

v.

)

)
)
)

) Civ. Action No. 15-1141-GMS

FLOYD WHEELER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Frank Brett ("Brett"), filed this lawsuit on November 20, 2015. (0.1.4.)
He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. (0.1.6.) The court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. BACKGROUND

Brett, who resides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed this case under RICO. He alleges
that the defendants have stolen his civil rights, stalked him in ten states, spread lies about him,
harassed and threatened him, called him gay and touched him inappropriately in Florida, and lied
to Rockford employees. In addition, he alleges that he was run over by a black Cadillac and
suffered injuries. He seeks one million dollars from each defendants.
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 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. § 19 15(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. lvfcCullough, 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). A
plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See

Johnson v. City ofShelby, _U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed,

2

however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at
346.
Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the
sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must
plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions,
are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, the court should assume their veracity and then detennine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp.,809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir.
2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the
facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context­
specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense." Id.

III. DISCUSSION
Brett's conclusory allegations do not meet the pleading requirements of Iqbal and

Twombly and are frivolous. 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 tenns of
credibility and rationality, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.c.

3

§ 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 Hosp.,
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)(i).
Amendment of the complaint would be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004);

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 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.

~ ~.

,2016

Wilmington, Delaware

4