Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-1591
11-05-2012
MATTHEW P. DEC, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF THIRD CIRCUIT, Defendant.
Judge Cathy Bissoon
ORDER
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's case will be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Atamian v. Burns, 2007 WL 1512020, *1-2 (3d Cir. May 24, 2007) ("the screening procedures set forth in [Section] 1915(e) apply to [IFP] complaints filed by prisoners and non-prisoners alike") (citations omitted). Section 1915(e)(2) provides that "the [C]ourt shall dismiss the case at any time if [it] determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous." Id., § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Plaintiff purports to bring suit against "the Jurisdiction of the District of the Third Circuit of the Federal Courts [sic]." Compl. (Doc. 2). To the extent that his pleadings are intelligible, Plaintiff appears to challenge the constitutionality of unspecified laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by convicted felons. See id. at ¶¶ 8-13. In Plaintiff's view, depriving convicted felons who engaged in "non-violent or non-sexual offense[s]," such as "growing marijuana or getting into a non-lethal fight with a mutual combatant in a drunken brawl," violates the Second Amendment. See id. at ¶ 12.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recognized the presumptive constitutionality of felon dispossession statutes. See U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 172-73 (3d Cir. 2011) ("felon gun dispossession statutes are presumptively lawful," and "[a] lawful prohibition regulates conduct fall[ing outside] the scope of the Second Amendment[]") (citation to quoted sources omitted, some alterations in original). The Complaint fails to identify any specific dispossession statute, let alone "establish [ ] that no set of circumstances exists" under which any such statute "would be valid, i.e., that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications." Id. at 172 (identifying legal standards regarding facial constitutional challenge) (citation to quoted source omitted). The Complaint also is bereft of any factual averments that may support an "as applied" challenge. See generally id. at 173; see also Compl. at ¶ 13 (purporting to seek relief on behalf of not only Plaintiff, but "[all of] the constituents of this District").
Plaintiff's blanket challenge to the constitutionality of unspecified felon dispossession statutes is "indisputably meritless," and therefore is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Given the nature of Plaintiff's claims, amendment of his pleadings would be futile, and, therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
See Mehta v. City of Jersey City, 2010 WL 95058, *1 (3d Cir. Jan. 12, 2010) (applying same standard under Section 1915) (citation to quoted source omitted).
In light of this ruling, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 4) for service by the U.S. Marshal is DENIED AS MOOT.
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail): Matthew P. Dec
314 Liberty Street, Apt. C
Butler, PA 16001