Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-5025
09-04-2014
MR. DANIEL FRANCIS HENDRIE v. UNCLE GOV. TOM CORBETT
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Daniel Francis Hendrie filed this action against Governor Corbett and others. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court will grant. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if "the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). Furthermore, as plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss his complaint if it is frivolous or fails to state a claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It is legally baseless if "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995), and factually baseless "when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id.
Plaintiff's complaint is comprised of phrases and arrows pointing to other phrases without any apparent logic. It references people, places, and time periods in a disjointed, nonsensical manner. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court cannot ascertain any factual basis for a non-frivolous claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Plaintiff will not be given leave to amend because the Court concludes that amendment would be futile, especially in light of prior complaints he has filed in the federal courts. See, e.g., Hendrie v. Beister, Civ. A. No. 13-680 (E.D. Pa.); Hendrie v. Pennsylvania State, Civ. A. No. 06-1496 (E.D. Cal.); Hendrie v. Rendell, Civ. A. No. 06-395 (S.D. Ohio); Hendrie v. Present, Civ. A. No. 06-94 (E.D. Ark.). An appropriate order follows, which shall be docketed separately.