Opinion
1:23-cv-145
11-30-2023
JIMITA RACHEL DIXON, Plaintiff v. GINA SEMINO, Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, United States District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended this action be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
II. Report
A. Legal standards
Because Plaintiff is seeking redress “from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” her pleadings are subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A. In pertinent part, § 1915 A provides that a court “shall . . . dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint ... is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). In performing this mandatory screening function, a district court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. County of Allegheny, 568 F.Supp.2d 579, 587-89 (W.D. Pa. 2008).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff initiated this action on May 15, 2023, and she filed a motion to amend her complaint to add a claim on May 26, 2023. ECF Nos. 1,3. Each of her pleadings is largely delusional. In her original complaint, she maintains that, in 2009, a former Erie County Prison guard named Jody Winder approached her residence and asked her ex-husband, Stephen, to “take a ride with him in a police car he had somehow borrowed from Erie County Erie PA.” ECF No. 1. Stephen “returned about 5 hours later and Jody Winder blew a powder substance in his face.” Id. Stephen then explained that Winder had taken him to a nearby house and explained that Plaintiff had scrap metal in her brain. Id. According to Plaintiff, Winder then showed Stephen “a video of me being drugged at around age 16 with him having sex with me almost lifeless” and a video of “him beating me in a house in Erie on 19th Str, starving me with it [and] recording me taking baths and applying lotion.” Id. Winder also showed Stephen “a robot with a rope around the neck that had notes stuck to it that meant he was going to make me DUMB in the next 5 years from 2009 and had a bombbox he was using to take head beats from my head.” Id. Plaintiff maintains that she explained all of this to other guards at the Erie County Prison on May 8, 2023. Id.
In her proposed amendment, Plaintiff adds that a guard kept approaching her and other inmates on May 19, 2023, asking “why do we look the way we did.” ECF No. 3. When Plaintiff ignored her, the guard “stopped in front of [her] and spinned around 3 times” before moving out of the way. Id. Thirty second later, two guards approached Plaintiff and she “felt like metal was being released in my body almost as if she allowed herself to be a human symbol to verbalize what she wanted me to feel or go through.” Id. The following day, Plaintiff had a vision of her “body being attached to a tunnel” and of being verbally harassed by several individuals that she knew when she lived in Atlanta, Georgia at some point in the past. Id. Finally, one of the Defendants used telepathy on May 21, 2023, to send hypnosis into Plaintiffs stomach and “slammed things” to send her subliminal messages. Id.
In this Court's estimation, Plaintiffs fanciful and frequently incoherent pleadings lack any arguable basis in law or fact, rendering them frivolous and subject to summary dismissal. In addition, her pleadings relate entirely to events that either happened over a decade ago, well outside of the statutory limitations period, or only days before she filed her complaint, making proper exhaustion impossible. Finally, although Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, she has failed to cite any federal statutory provision or constitutional amendment that might form the basis for federal jurisdiction. The remainder of her averments are incoherent and appear to be delusional. See Brookins v Cty. of Allegheny, 350 Fed.Appx. 639, 642 (3d Cir. 2009) (“A court may discredit allegations that are ‘fanciful, fantastic, and delusional' and thus dismiss a complaint as factually frivolous when the facts alleged ‘rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.'”) (quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (citations omitted). Moreover, given the nature of these pleadings, the Court finds that they are incapable of being cured by amendment. See, e.g., Johnson v. Trump, 745 Fed.Appx. 445 (3d Cir. 2018) (affirming the district court's determination that leave to amend would be futile, despite the general rule in favor of curative amendments, where the allegations at issue were fanciful, fantastic, or delusional); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that this action be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further leave to amend.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).