ACKERMAN v. MERCY BEHAVIOR HEALTH et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and dismissing the Complaint as frivolous. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 03/09/15.(mcp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM JAMES ACKERMAN,,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERCY BEHAVIOR HEALTH and
RAYMOND WOLF,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) 2:15-cv-304
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
Plaintiff William James Ackerman is certainly no stranger to this Court’s docket. From
December 2012 to September 2014, Ackerman filed five separate lawsuits—all of which were
ultimately dismissed as frivolous—against “Mercy Behavior(al) Health,” “Ray(mond) Wolf, “Mental
Health Court,” Western Psychiatric Institute Clinic, the Office of Behavior Health, and the presumed
employees of those entities. See Ackerman v. Mercy Behavior Health, 2:12-cv-01807-TFM (W.D.

Pa. Dec. 11, 2012); Ackerman v. Mental Health Court, 2:13-cv-00173-TFM (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1,
2013); Ackerman and Sons of Mental Illness v. Western Psychiatric Institute Clinic, 2:13-cv00388-TFM (W.D. Pa. March 18, 2013); Ackerman v. Office of Behavior Health, 2:13-cv-00417TFM (W.D. Pa. March 21, 2013); Ackerman v. Mercy Behavior Health, 2:14-cv-1199-TFM
(W.D. Pa. Sept. 4, 2014). This action marks the sixth such occasion. For the reasons that follow,
the Court will grant Ackerman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis but will dismiss the Complaint
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
A district court must use a “two-step analysis in evaluating motions to proceed under §
1915.” Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). The court must first evaluate the
plaintiff’s “financial status and determine[ ] whether (s)he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis
under § 1915(a).” Id. The determination of whether to grant or deny IFP status is “based on

economic criteria alone.” Id. Second, the court must analyze the complaint “under § 1915(d) to
determine whether it is frivolous.”

Id.

A complaint is frivolous only if it is “based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory” or if its “factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id. at 195
(citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)). In making this determination, 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 (1992)
(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-29). Nevertheless, “when presented with a pro se litigant, [the
Court] ha[s] a special obligation to construe his complaint liberally.” Higgs v. Atty. Gen. of the U.S.,
655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
Upon a review of Ackermna’s financial status, the Court finds that he is unable to pay the
requisite filing fee, and therefore, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. A review
of his Compliant, however, makes clear that his claims are once again frivolous.
Much like his previous Complaints, Ackerman alleges that Mercy Behavioral Health
mistreats its mental health patients. As relief, Ackerman seeks:
A new building that’s six storys [sic], four new van[s], back pay, patient advocate, a
newspaper, patient training program, a church, a mental health library, staff training
on sexual abuse, a patient leadership program, voluntary polygraph testing, to start up
a patient union, [and] [a] health care law and ethics program for all Mercy staff.
(ECF No. 1-1 at 4.)

Ackerman also seeks $5 million and $25 million in monetary damages

throughout his Complaint.
The Court finds that there is no logical construction of the Complaint from which to derive a
viable claim against the named Defendants and that Ackerman could not cure the deficiencies by
amendment. Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this case closed.
Ackerman is once again warned that he may expose himself to sanctions under Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should he continue to file frivolous legal actions. Sanctions could

2

potentially include a requirement that Ackerman obtain certification from a Magistrate Judge before
bringing any future action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. See Hill v. Carpenter, 323 F. App’x 167, 172 (3d Cir. 2009). This approach has been
endorsed by our court of appeals and in its sister circuits, as “it would prevent [Ackerman] from
pursuing frivolous actions without denying him access to the courts.” Id.
SO ORDERED, this 9th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence F. McVerry
Senior United States District Judge
cc:

WILLIAM JAMES ACKERMAN
200 Knoedler Road
Apartment 912
Pittsburgh, PA 15236
(via First-Class and Certified Mail)

3