United States District Court, D. Delaware
SIRENA R. PERMENTER, Beneficial Owner and Designated Representative for Permenter, Sirena R. Permenter, Plaintiff,
MATT DENN, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Defendant.
plaintiff, Sirena R. Permenter ("Permenter"), who
resides in Middletown, Delaware, filed this lawsuit on
November 30, 2017. (D.I. 2.) She appears pro se and
was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 6.) The court now
proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
filed this "memorial for declaratory judgment matter of
interest to note'" invoking 35 U.S.C. § 31 and
38 U.S.C. § 315(e) and describing the case as
"RICO, white collar crime." (D.I. 2-2.) She seeks
declaratory judgment or declaratory relief "for
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, RICO Act,
False Claims Act, White Collar Crime; and many other
provisions covering similar fraud; identity theft; false
identification and abuse." (D.I. 2 at 1.) While far from
clear, it appears this lawsuit has something to do with
misdemeanor charges brought against Permenter on September
16, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas for the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County, State v.
Permenter, Case I.D. No. 1607009672 for failure to have
insurance identification in possession, failure to sign and
carry a license, and failure to have a license plate secured
to her vehicle. (D.I. 2-1, ex. B.) She asks the court to
issue a decree for estoppel pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
315(e) (i.e., patents and protection of patent
rights) and the dismissal with prejudice of Case I.D. No.
1607009672. She has also filed a motion for summary
possession. (D.I. 7.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain
in forma 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 of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229
(3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007). Because Permenter 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. §
l9l5(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 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 § l9l5(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 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 Permenter 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. See Ashcroft 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.
the pleading regime established by Twombly and
Iqbal, a court 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, the
court should 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) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
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 sense."
conclusory allegations do not meet the pleading requirements
of lqbal and Twombly. 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 refers
to federal statutes that have no connection to the
allegations, consists of claims that are clearly baseless and
are insufficient to withstand this court's evaluation for
frivolity dismissal. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992). In addition, Permenter seeks relief not
available to her. This court does not have the authority to
dismiss the misdemeanor charges filed against her in State
there are no viable federal claims, this court does not have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor is there
jurisdiction by reason of diversity under 28 U.S.C. §
1332 given that all parties are citizens of the same state,
Delaware. Plaintiff provides a Delaware address and the sole
defendant is Matt Denn, Attorney General of the State of
the complaint fail to state a federal claim and the parties
are not diverse, this court lacks jurisdiction over the