WRIGHT v. NOCITO

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER granting pro se Plaintiff Mr. Wright's 6 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, as further set forth in the attached Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 3/27/2024. (bjw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAKEN RAYHEEM WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,

2:23-CV-02068-CCW

v.
JOSEPH W. NOCITO,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Raken Rayheem Wright’s Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. ECF No. 6. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Mr. Wright’s Motion
and DISMISS the Complaint under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
I.

Background
On December 1, 2023, Mr. Wright commenced this action by filing a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. Mr. Wright’s Complaint was lodged while the motion was pending.
Id. On March 7, 2024, following the Court’s denial of Mr. Wright’s initial motion, ECF No. 5,
Mr. Wright filed the instant Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 6. In the Motion, Mr.
Wright avers that he receives $983 a month for disability, has $183 in expenses each month, and
currently has $983 in his checking account and $0 in his savings account. ECF No. 6.
In the “Facts” section of Mr. Wright’s Complaint, he alleges:
My property was under investigation 137 beech ridge dr sewickley,
Pa which lead to identify thief. Also bank account information was
data breach forcing all accounts closed. Property was seized by the
government under indictment activities involving Joseph nocito
conspiracy to tax fraud. Defendant did not have permission from
me to use address to commit fraud or live at the property. My

property has lose value and must undergoing investigations until
matters are resolved. [sic]
ECF No. 1-1 ¶ IV.
In the “Relief” section of Mr. Wright’s Complaint, he seeks “return of property” and
damages which “would be the value of my property and [Mr. Nocito] must pay restitution
concerning this issue.” Id. ¶¶ V, VI. In the “Additional Info” section, Mr. Wright alleges that
“[a]ll credit bureaus where data breached and [he] had to file a complaints on residents to obtain
information concerning [his] property 137 beech ridge dr sewickley Pa, 15143.” Id. ¶ VII.
On the civil cover sheet, in the “Cause of Action” section, Mr. Wright wrote “my property
was based on fraud I want return of property.” ECF No. 1-2 at 1. Mr. Wright also indicated on
the civil cover sheet that this action was related to Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-1882 (the “Related
Action”). 1
II.

Plaintiff’s Action is Frivolous
For claims filed in forma pauperis, § 1915(e) acts as a screening mechanism that authorizes

dismissal for various reasons, including when the case is “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Although these dismissals can occur “at any time,” § 1915(e)(2), they “are
often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the
inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
324 (1989). “Repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed
under § 1915 as frivolous or malicious.” Banks v. County of Allegheny, 568 F. Supp. 2d. 579,
589–90 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (Lancaster, J.); Hoye v. Allegheny Cnty. Med. Dep't, No. 2:23-CV-01648,
2023 WL 7124580, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2023) (Fischer, J.).

1

The Related Action is captioned Wright v. Nocito, 2:20-cv-1882 (W.D. Pa.) (Wiegand, J.).

2

The Court finds that Mr. Wright is financially unable to pay the filing fee and accordingly
will grant his Motion. However, under the screening provisions of § 1915, the Court will dismiss
the Complaint because the instant action contains virtually identical claims as those Mr. Wright
attempted to assert in the Related Action. In 2020, Mr. Wright first sued Defendant Joseph W.
Nocito in the Related Action. In both actions, Mr. Wright asserts an alleged ownership interest in
137 Beech Ridge Dr, Sewickely, PA 15143, ECF No. 1-1; Related Action, ECF No. 16, and
alleges that Defendant somehow interfered with that ownership interest. ECF No. 1-1; Related
Action, ECF Nos. 3, 16. Both actions refer to a tax fraud scheme allegedly conducted by
Defendant, ECF No. 1-1; Related Action, ECF Nos. 3, 16, 19, and seek return of the property,
ECF No. 1-1; Related Action, No. ECF No. 3. On August 5, 2021, the Court dismissed the Related
Action with prejudice for failure to state a claim and entered judgment in favor of Defendant.
Related Action, ECF Nos. 38, 39. The Court’s comparison of the current Complaint against the
complaint and documents filed in the Related Action reveals that the instant action is repetitive of
the Related Action. Accordingly, the Complaint is frivolous under § 1915 and warrants dismissal.
Porter v. Cancelmi, 2006 WL 3490589, at **4–7 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2006) (Hardiman, J.)
(dismissing pro se complaint on the basis that it is frivolous because the complaint “is clearly
repetitious of another complaint that Plaintiff filed”).
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for
being frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

3

DATED this 27th day of March, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Christy Criswell Wiegand
CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND
United States District Judge

cc (via United States mail):
Raken Rayheem Wright
815 Sigma Street
Laurinberg, NC 28352

4