United States District Court, D. Delaware
WAYNE T. GAMBLE, Plaintiff,
WILMINGTON POLICE, et al., 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.I. 4) He asserts jurisdiction by reason of a United States
government defendant. The Court proceeds to review and screen
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
as defendants are the Wilmington Police Department
("Police Department"), W.S.F.S. Bank
("WSFS"), and Citizen's Bank
("Citizen's"). Plaintiff alleges that the
Police Department failed to put in his warrant when WSFS
stole money from Plaintiffs bank account. The Complaint
alleges this occurred in 2012 and is ongoing. Plaintiff
alleges that the United States federal court knows about it
and that federal agents have witnessed the whole thing. He
also alleges that the Police Department broke the law and the
F.B.I, sits there and watches. Plaintiff alleges that he is
homeless and that someone is trying to kill him. He seeks
$899, 000, 000, 000 and property.
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." Ballv. 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 apro
se plaintiff. See 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, 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 meritless
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 Tourscherv. 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. May view 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." BellAtl. 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 LL, C, 765 F.3d 306,
315 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Asbcrvft 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
Johnson 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
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. 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 Iqbal, 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
Complaint asserts jurisdiction by reason of a federal
official or agency, but Plaintiff does not name a federal
official or an agency as a defendant. He does, however,
attempt to raise a claim against a municipal defendant.
Regardless, to the extent Plaintiff intended to raise claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the claims fail. Neither WSFS
nor Citizen's are State Actors as is required under
§ 1983. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.42, 48
(1988) (when bringing § 1983 claim, plaintiff ...