BRETT v. ANTHONY UNKNOWN et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION SIGNED BY HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 10/3/17. 10/3/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(ti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OCT 03 2017
ANTHONY UNKNOWN, et al.,
/8 KATE BARKMAN, Clerk
, __D~Jp. Clerk
3 , 2017
Plaintiff Frank Brett filed this civil action against Anthony Unknown, Salvatore
Unknown, Paul Marsella, another Salvatore Unknown, Margie Marsella, Summer Boobs, Mr.
Man, PP JMH-7929, Cobbs Creek KGold Course-8 Employees, Havertown Police Department,
Officer Sgt. Shengold, Dennis O'Donnel, Lt. Joe Greco, Officer Monty, Officer Haywire, Pike,
Hollingsworth, Officer Lane, Officer Kennedy, Pilgrim Shoe Service, Mrs. Good, Mrs. Day,
Steve Copramancle, Mrs. Luglr, and Charlre Breth. He also filed a motion to proceed informa
pauperis and a motion to allow the admission of 43 tapes. The Court will grant plaintiff leave to
proceed informa pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, because it appears he is incapable of
paying the fees necessary to commence this action. However, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs
complaint and deny his remaining motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A district court may sua
sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if "the complaint is so confused,
ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised."
Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). Furthermore, as
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss his complaint if it is frivolous
or fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). A complaint is frivolous ifit
"lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
It is legally baseless if "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," Deutsch v. United
States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995), and factually baseless "when the facts alleged rise to
the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1992). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must contain "sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked
assertions will not suffice. Id.
As is typical of plaintiffs numerous filings in federal court, his complaint is rambling,
unclear, and nonsensical. It consists of a stream of consciousness narrative of events dating
back to 1994, many of which do not concern the named defendants. Several of plaintiffs
allegations appear to rise to the level of delusional or incredible, for example, his allegation that
in 1997, he and his wife were poisoned with arsenic and that several individuals, including
strippers, were extorting him at that time. Moreover, plaintiff fails to coherently allege that any
of the named defendants acted under color of state law to deprive him of his constitutional rights.
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To the extent plaintiff claims that the federal and
state governments failed to investigate alleged felonies committed against plaintiff, there is no
legal basis for his claims. See Godfrey v. Pennsylvania, 525 F. App'x 78, 80 n.1 (3d Cir. 2013)
(per curiam) ("[T]here is no federal right to require the government to initiate criminal
proceedings."); Graw v. Fantasky, 68 F. App'x 378, 383 (3d Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of
claims based on allegations that police officers failed to investigate constitutional violations
because "an allegation of a failure to investigate, without another recognizable constitutional
right, is not sufficient to sustain a section 1983 claim" (quotations omitted)). Plaintiff has also
attached to his complaint several pages of license plate numbers, which he appears to believe
reflect occasions on which he was stalked.
Having reviewed the complaint, the Court cannot ascertain a clear factual basis for a
timely, non-frivolous claim within this Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
the complaint pursuant to Rule 8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Having reviewed
plaintiffs complaint in this action and his filings in other actions, the Court concludes that
amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112-13 (3d Cir.
2002). The Court will deny plaintiffs remaining motion because there is no basis for this Court
to review 43 tapes concerning a murder that plaintiff alleges occurred in 2002. An appropriate
order follows, which shall be docketed separately.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?