Gamboa v. Commonwealth

Full title: EDWARD M. GAMBOA, JR., Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 6, 2022

Civil Action 22-1373 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 22-1373

10-06-2022

EDWARD M. GAMBOA, JR., Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant.

Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge.

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, 236 Fed.Appx. 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he screening procedures set forth in [Section] 1915(e) apply to [IFP] complaints filed by prisoners and non-prisoners alike.”) (citations omitted). Among other things, the screening provisions require a court to dismiss an action that is frivolous or malicious. El-Bey v. U.S., 619 Fed.Appx. 53, 54 (3d Cir. Oct. 13, 2015).

In this case, to the extent they are intelligible, the sum total of Plaintiff's substantive allegations are as follows:

Plaintiff asks the Court to bring criminal charges on all those in the banks of the Federal Reserve for laundering money and crypto, stealing land minerals, and acts of genocide. He has proof of fake identities being used as well as a farm. He asks the Court to grant the custody of the “Indian land inheritance” as well as the land mineral rights and the chief minister position promised by “completion of prophecy.” Plaintiff suspects the “Barr administration” should be held liable as well, the “bat cave” investigated, and the vote overturned. He seeks to take the position of the President as a declaration of taking to prevent “a war coming the American way.” Plaintiff requests damages due to sexual abuse and genocides. He further asks for the investigation of several state officials and to “take custody” with this Court's help.

Compl. (Doc. 6) at ¶¶ V-VII; see also Doc. 7 (“Exhibits”).

Frivolity is “a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic and delusional.” El-Bey, 619 Fed.Appx. at 54 (internal quotations and ellipses omitted). A complaint may be dismissed as such “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. As the Court believes is self-evident, Plaintiffs allegations fall within this category. Thus, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that any appeal from this Order of Dismissal would not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.