United States District Court, D. Delaware
WAYNE T. GAMBLE, Plaintiff,
HERR'S FOOD INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants.
T. Gamble, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Wayne T. Gamble ("Plaintiff') filed this action on
March 22, 2017. (D.I. 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 Herr's Food Incorporated
("Herr's") and Met-Life Insurance Company
("Met-Life"). Plaintiff alleges he heard that
Herr's and the VISA Company told Met-Life not to tell him
about his money and property. Plaintiff also alleges that
from 2011 to the present, Herr's, American Express, and
Met-Life broke the law and committed a crime by stealing
money and property from the courts and from Citizen's
Bank and WSFS. He alleges that Met-Life was supposed to tell
him, but it went against its rules and against the law.
Plaintiff alleges that "they broke the law,"
forensics said he was innocent, and they stole money and
property from him. Plaintiff 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. 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)(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; see also Wilson v.
Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Or. 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. Mayview 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
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. It seems that Plaintiff
seeks to bring criminal charges against defendants, while at
the same time seeking compensatory damages. To the extent
that Plaintiff seeks to impose criminal liability upon
Defendants, he lacks standing to proceed. See Allen v.
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 270
Fed.Appx. 149, 150 (3d Cir. Mar. 17, 2008); United States
v. Friedland,83 F.3d 1531, 1539 (3d Cir. 1996)
("[T]he United States Attorney is responsible for the
prosecution of all criminal cases within his or her