Source: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2012cv00807/49044/6/
Timestamp: 2014-08-20 14:35:27
Document Index: 551610498

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M for Brett v. ING Financial Partners et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings Justia.com
> Brett v. ING Financial Partners et al
Brett v. ING Financial Partners et al
MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 10/4/12. (rwc)
Download PDF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FRANK BRETT,
INO FINANCIAL PARTNERS, et aI.,
) Civ. Action No. 12-807-0MS
The plaintiff, Frank Brett ("Brett"), filed this lawsuit on June 22 2012. (D.I.4.) He
appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. (D.I.5.) The court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28
Brett, who resides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed this case pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and alleges discrimination by reason of religion. Brett alleges that the defendants
have kept him from obtaining a new job for the past five years. He further alleges that the
defendants took this alleged action "to cover up their crimes against [him] so that they could not
be prosecuted." (DJ.4.) Brett seeks injunctive relief.
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain informa pauperis actions
that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must accept all factual
allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff.
Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 93 (2007). Because Brett proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his
complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on 12(b)(6) motions.
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B». However, before
pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must grant Brett leave to
amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Id at 678. When
claim are separated. Id The court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true,
but may disregard any legal conclusions. Id at 210-11. Second, the court must determine
whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that Brett has a "plausible claim
for relief."] Id at 21 L In other words, the complaint must do more than allege Brett's
entitlement to relief; rather it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. Id "[WJhere the
well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct,
the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown ~ that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
Brett alleges discriminatory by reason of religion occurred when he used a computer at
the Penn Wynne Library to apply for a job at McDonald's, the computer was "making mistakes,"
a man next to him was communicating with INO Investments, Penn Wynne Library employees
"messed with the computer", and people from Presbyterian Church, located next door, "were
involved." After thoroughly reviewing the complaint, the court draws on its judicial experience
and common sense and finds that the allegations are not plausible on their face. Indeed, the
complaint consists of fantastical or delusional claims that are clearly baseless and they are
insufficient to withstand this court's evaluation for frivolity dismissal. See Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
IA claim is facially plausible when its factual content allows the court to draw a
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id "Where a complaint pleads facts that are
plausibility of' entitlement to relief. '" Id
Because the court finds the allegations the complaint wholly lacking in both terms of
credibility and rationality, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). In light of the nature of Brett's claims, the court finds that amendment would
be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004); Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp.,
293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City ofReading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir.
The court will dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Amendment of the complaint would be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004);
Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City ofReading,
532 F.2d 950,951-52 (3d Cir. 1976).
() 01 i