DUGLAS v. VERIZON

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOLLOWS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 6/14/17. 6/15/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN. (pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LOLITA DOUGLAS

v.
VERIZON

PRATTER, J.

JUNE#.' 2017

Plaintiff Lolita Douglas filed a motion to proceed in forma pauper is and a complaint
against Verizon, although the second page of her complaint names "PECO Energy" as a
defendant. According to Ms. Douglas, the basis for her lawsuit is her "right to know a personal
friend." (Compl. at 2.) The complaint provides the following factual basis for her claims:
I was lying down in my room and not aware. I heard like a humming noise. My
electric, energy all off clock, electric energy refrigerator electric energy radiator heat
and air conditioner. I didn't hear the electric energy wireless phone (volume) ring I
think it was the phone.
(Id. at 3.) Ms. Douglas seeks damages in the.amount of five cents, and asks the court to "give

[her] Black National Anthem" and a specialist. (Id. at 4.)
Ms. Douglas's motion to proceed informapauperis is granted because it appears that she
is incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action.
However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) require the Court to dismiss the complaint
if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact," Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and is legally baseless if
it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080,
1085 (3d Cir. 1995). 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."
1

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). "[M]ere conclusory
statements[] do not suffice." Id.
Ms. Douglas is proceeding prose, and for that reason the Court construes her allegations
liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). Nothing alleged or remotely
feasible from the allegations in Ms. Douglas's complaint gives rise to a claim under federal or
state law. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for her lawsuit. The Court will therefore dismiss
the complaint with prejudice because amendment would be futile. An appropriate order follows,
which shall be docketed separately.

2