MARSH-MATHIS v. HOMELAND SECURITY et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 2/14/2012. (rlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARY A. MARSH-MATHIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 11-316 Erie

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
McLAUGHLIN, SEAN J., District Judge.
Plaintiff, Mary A. Marsh-Mathis, a non-prisoner litigant proceeding pro se, filed a
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on December 20, 2011. [ECF No. 1]. Attached
to her Motion is a handwritten Complaint against sixteen (16) Defendants.1 [ECF No. 1-1].
Plaintiff has also filed Motions for Writ of Mandamus and Motions for Leave to Amend. [ECF
No. 2] - [ECF No. 5]. In these Motions, Plaintiff seeks undefined Mandamus relief, and seeks to
amend her Complaint to add one hundred nineteen (119) Defendants.
Evaluating motions to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is a two step
process. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3rd Cir. 1990). “First, the district court
evaluates a litigant’s financial status and determines whether (s)he is eligible to proceed in forma
pauperis under § 1915(a). Second, the court assesses the complaint under [§ 1915(e)(2)] to
determine whether it is frivolous.” Id. (citing Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15 (3rd Cir. 1976));
Schneller v. Abel Home Care, Inc., 389 Fed. Appx. 90, 92 (3rd Cir. 2010), cert. denied, __ U.S.
__, 131 S.Ct. 1477 (2011).
Plaintiff has alleged that she has a total of .34 cents in the bank. [ECF No. 1] p. 1. Based
on this averment, I find that she does not have the funds required to pay the costs and fees of this
1

Named as Defendants are: Homeland Security; USA States-Pennsylvania; U.S. Federal Govt-Courts; United
Nations; United Kingdom; NATO; NASA; Pentagon; U.S. Cabinet; U.S. Senate-Congress; Secret Service; CIA;
FBI; U.S. Gen. Assembly-Delegates; Homeland Security-Erie; and All Allies. [ECF No. 1-1].

1

proceeding and her Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. I shall now
proceed to determine whether the Complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).2
A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. [The]
term ‘frivolous’ when applied to the complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous, the Court need not accept the
factual allegations as true, but must “pierce the veil of the complaint,” to determine if the
allegations are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1993) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-29). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not
there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id. at 33.
It is apparent from this Court’s review of the Complaint that the allegations are delusional
and unintelligible. For example, Plaintiff alleges:
***
5. On JULY 4, 1776, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS
entered into a contract with the PLAINTIFF-U.S.A., PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S
BIRTH ON “AUGUST 15, 1961” WHEREBY PLAINTIFF HAVING VESTED
DUAL CITIZENSHIP, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES TO “ALL”
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, U.S.T., TREATIES COVENANTS, INT’L
PROTOCOLS AGREEMENTS, AND UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS – A

2

Section 1915(e) states, in pertinent part:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that –
***
(B) the action nor appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This section applies to both prisoner and non-prisoner cases. See, e.g. Grayson v.
Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 n.19 (3rd Cir. 2002) (non-prisoner indigent plaintiffs are “clearly within the
scope of § 1915(e)(2)”); Jayne v. Pike County Correctional Facility, 2007 WL 2972579 at *1 n.1 (M.D.Pa. 2007)
(citing cases), aff’d in part and rev’d in non-relevant part, 345 Fed. Appx. 861 (3rd Cir. 2009); Weimer v.
Vanorsdale, 2007 WL 1653623 at *1 n.1 (W.D.Pa. 2007) (citing cases).

2

DECLARATION – PROCLAMATION OF THE UNION AND GENERAL
ASSEMBLY:
6. DID CONSPIRE TO DEFRAUD SUITOR-DIPLOMAT OVER A 15 YR
PERIOD “ALL” FORMS OF CONST., AND GOVT.;
7. DID DENY SUITOR-DIPLOMAT OVER A 15 YR “ALL” FORMS OF
FEDERAL GOVT, - U.S.T. INT’L PROTOCOL UNN. RTS; DID COMMIT
CALUMNY, TREASONS, TYRANNY, OPPRESSION, OFFICIAL
OPPRESSIONS, COURT ORDERED GENOCIDES, TORTURE, TRADE
SECRET INFRINGEMENTS, ABUSE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES;
FORCED PEONAGE, SLAVERY, TRAFFICKING – POLITICAL
HARDENING; AND “MASS DESTRUCTION” UPON SUITOR-DIPLOMAT
“LIFE” “LIBERTIES” “FREEDOMS” “HAPPINESS” AND “ALL” ESTATES;
***
[ECF No. 1-1] Complaint p. 1.
Moreover, even the most liberal reading of the Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals that it lacks
an arguable basis in law. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Plaintiff invokes the Crime Victims’ Rights
Act as a basis for recovery. However, as this Court recently stated:
The Crime Victims’ Rights Act was enacted to afford crime victims with
numerous rights in federal criminal cases, including the “right to be treated with
fairness and respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8).
However, the Act expressly states that it shall not “be construed to authorize a
cause of action for damages or to create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty or
obligation to any victim or other person …” . 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). As such,
courts have repeatedly held that Section 3771 does not authorize a private cause
of action for damages. See, e.g., Hill v. New York Post, 2010 WL 2999795, *3
(S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“The CVRA does not afford a basis for this Court to exercise
federal question jurisdiction over Hill’s suit.”); Searcy v. Paletz, 2007 WL
1875802, *2 (D.S.C. 2007) (“The Crime Victims’ Rights Act … establishes
certain rights of crime victims within the prosecutorial process against a criminal
defendant…. Plaintiff may not use § 3771 as a mechanism to bring an action
against Defendant directly.”); In re W.R. Huff Asset Management Co., LLC, 409
F.3d 555, 564 (2nd Cir. 2005) (“[T]he CVRA does not grant victims any rights
against individuals who have not been convicted of a crime.”). …
Lewen v. Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, 2011 WL 4527348 at *5 (W.D.Pa. 2011).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous within the meaning of 28
3

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). All related motions filed by the Plaintiff will also be denied. Given
the incoherent nature of the Plaintiff’s pleadings, I will not afford her an opportunity to amend
her Complaint since any such amendment, in my view, would be futile. See Alston v. Parker,
363 F.3d 229, 235-36 (3rd Cir. 2004); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3rd
Cir. 2002).

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2012, and for the reasons set forth above, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF
No. 1] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all
pending motions are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin
United States District Judge

cm:

All parties of record

4