BRETT v. SAMPSON et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 11/27/17. 11/27/17 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED TO BRETT. (fdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAURA SAMPSON, et al.
l(ATE BARKMAN, Clerkk
Plaintiff Frank Brett filed this civil action against several defendants. He also filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to file the case under seal. 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 motion to seal.
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 pauper is, 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 plaintiff's numerous filings in federal court, his complaint is rambling,
unclear, and nonsensical. It consists of a stream of consciousness recitation of events dating
back several years, some of which do not concern the named defendants. Plaintiff alleges in part
that some of the defendants called his names and hurt his feelings. He appears to believe that
other defendants may be trying to kill him. As with other civil actions that plaintiff has filed in
this district, he includes a list of license plates with his complaint.
Having reviewed the complaint, the Court cannot ascertain a clear factual basis for a nonfrivolous 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). In light of plaintiff's
complaint in this action and his similar complaints 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 also deny plaintiff's motion to seal. See Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d
549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994). 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?