JACKSON v. DUNKEN DONUTS et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 6/12/18. (jad)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN JERMAINE JACKSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.

DUNKEN DONUTS, et al.,
Defendants.

2: 18-cv-00766

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge
The Plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis status, and has filed a Complaint against a Dunkin'
Donuts shop located in this District. The Plaintiff lives in Wisconsin. The papers filed by the
Plaintiff are out of the ordinary, are replete mostly with Biblical references, and don't clearly
demonstrate a factual basis for in forma pauperis status. Nonetheless, the Court will give the
Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on that issue, and such status is granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, the Court is obligated to do a "screening" review
of the Complaint, and is to dismiss the action if the Complaint does not plausibly state a claim for
relief, giving due account for the prose status of the Plaintiff. The Court has done so.
Even giving the Plaintiff the most generous benefit of the doubt in applying that standard,
the Court is compelled to conclude that the Complaint cannot get over that bar. The Complaint
makes multiple references to the application of "God's Law", and the tension between that "Law"
and the "law of man". It also makes a very, very generalized reference to some sort of images
appearing on Y ouTube, without any attribution to any Defendant, or anyone in particular. The long
and the short of it is that the Complaint does not remotely plausibly state any claim for relief under
the law, nor does it provide any basis for the Court to conclude that any effort to amend would not

be futile. Thus, there is no basis to grant leave to amend, and since this case does not appear to be
based on the violation of any sort of civil rights law, there is no basis to stretch that principal even
further to permit such an amendment even in such circumstances. See Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F. 3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002).

Based on the Court's review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that it does not state a
plausible claim for relief, and that any effort at amendment would be futile. The action is dismissed
with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case.

Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge
Dated: June 12, 2018
cc: All counsel of record

2