Opinion
Civil Action 21-922
09-16-2021
ASIA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. DR. MARTONE, Defendant.
William S. Stickman IV District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE: ECF NO. 5
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Asia Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a pro se serial-filer of civil rights lawsuits. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter on September 7, 2021. ECF No. 4. Presently before the Court is the latest in this series of pro se complaints filed by Plaintiff. ECF No. 5. For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
See Johnson v. Rothschild, Civil Action No. 18-606 (W.D. Pa. filed May 7, 2018), ECF No. 2 at 2, for a brief discussion of some of Plaintiff's federal filings.
II. REPORT
The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.” Douris v. Middletown Twp., 293 Fed.Appx. 130, 131 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). Congress recognized, however, that a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324; Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 (3d Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this Court must review the Complaint and determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In order to withstand this review, Plaintiff's Complaint must present a colorable legal argument. In other words, her 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) (quotation marks omitted). “[M]ere conclusory statements[] do not suffice.” Id. As Plaintiff, in the instant case, is proceeding pro se, the Court construes her allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing cases).
This Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and concludes that it presents no colorable legal claim. As best as this Court can discern, Plaintiff complains that Defendant allegedly made false statements to a court - presumably during a competency hearing after which a state court briefly committed her to the custody of a mental hospital - and provided her with “offensive acne cream [b]ottles[.]” ECF No. 5 at 4-5 and ECF No. 1-2 at 11. As there is no legal theory upon which Plaintiff may proceed in this Court, leave to amend would be futile, and should be denied. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007); See also Johnson v. Benjamin, Case No. 21-923, (W.D. Pa. filed July 16, 2021) ECF No. 3 (dismissing claims of false statements made by the defendant thereto during the same time-period as presenting no colorable legal claim).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
Hon. William S. Stickman IV, United States District Judge