United States District Court, D. Delaware
WAYNE T. GAMBLE, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT, etal., Defendants.
T. Gamble, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Wayne T. Gamble ("Plaintiff) filed this action on March
9, 2017. (D.l. 2) He appears pro se and has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(D.L 4) The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
as defendants are the United States Federal Courts
("Federal Courts"), New Castle County Police
Department ("NCC Police Department"), and Dover
Police Department ("Dover Police Department").
Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Courts are stopping him from
putting in legal forms, giving him frivolous forms, and that
the Federal Courts know about the stolen money and property
taken from him. He also alleges that from 2007 to November
2017, the Wilmington Police, the F.B.I., and the Federal
Courts have known that people and banks have stolen money
($899, 000, 000, 000) and property from him. Plaintiff
alleges "they know the amount and let them lie." He
also alleges that an insurance company did not tell him that
he had money and property. He seeks $899, 000, 000, 000 and
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. See Phillips v. County of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008);
Erickson v. Tardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because
Plaintiff 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, 551
U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
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)®, a court may dismiss a complaint as
frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meridess
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or
"fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.
Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; see also 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 deciding Rule
12(b)(6) motions. See 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 a plaintiff leave to amend
his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Majview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
complaint may be dismissed only if, accepting the
well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court
concludes that those allegations "could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). Though "detailed
factual allegations" are not required, a complaint must
do more than simply provide "labels and
conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action." Davis v. Abington
Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
See Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306,
315 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Finally, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that
a claim has substantive plausibility. See
]ohnson v. City of Shelby, ___U.S.___, 135 S.Ct.
346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed for imperfect
statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.
See Id. at 346.
the pleading regime established by Twombly and
Iqbaly 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. See
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. See Iqbaly 556 U.S. at 679
(citing 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." Id.
extent Plaintiff intended to raise claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 or Bivensclaims, the claims fail. The
allegations in the Complaint are both legally and factually
frivolous and do not rise to the level of constitutional
violations. While Plaintiff names the NCC and Dover Police
Departments as defendants, there are no allegations directed
towards them. Plaintiffs allegations directed towards the
Federal Courts express his displeasure with information
provided him, nothing more. As pled, there is no legal basis
for Plaintiff claims. Indeed, the allegations are conclusory,
and the Court's experience and common sense lead it to
recognize that the Complaint ...