United States District Court, D. Delaware
TYIRIS N. JONES, Plaintiff,
USPS POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants.
N. Jones, New Castle, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Tyiris N. Jones proceeds pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. She commenced
this action on November 21, 2017. (D.I. 2). The Court
proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
basis for jurisdiction, Plaintiff states that she was
arrested by a male county officer and a probation officer on
the day of her housing inspection. Plaintiff states that the
arrest should have been by a female officer, "so
offensive touching." (D.I. 2). In her statement of
claim, Plaintiff describes several telephone calls she had
with USPS employees about four months prior to the date she
commenced this action. The calls were made when Plaintiff was
trying to locate a package that was never delivered to her.
Plaintiff states that Defendant postal inspector Mike
actually came to her house instead of proceeding with an
investigation of her complaint. Plaintiff also telephoned
Joseph at the Federal Trade Commission and the Inspector
states that she is behind in her bills and anemic. She
"need[s] to be compensated for all the wrong and civil
rights that have been violated." (Id. at p.6).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, a vehicle, vaccinations
for herself and her children, and asks that the individuals
involved in the matter "do the time of the crime."
(Id. at p.7).
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726
F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013). See also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). 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 of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff
proceeds pro se, her pleading is liberally construed
and her 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.
action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as
frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or
"fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; Wilson v.
Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is
identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule
12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d
236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, before dismissing a
complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of
28 U.S.C. §1915, the Court must grant Plaintiff leave to
amend her complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. SeeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that
a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City
of Shelby, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A
complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect
statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.
See Id. at 346.
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three
steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead
to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they
are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d
Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts
in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is
entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible
will be a "context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
allegations in the Complaint are legally and factually
frivolous. As pled, the facts do not rise to constitutional
violations and there is no legal basis for Plaintiff's
claims. In addition, the Court finds the allegations are
conclusory, and somewhat disjointed in that various negative
events in Plaintiffs life are recited even though the events
appear to be unrelated to one another. Based on the