United States District Court, D. Delaware
Neyembo Mikanda, Wilmington, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge
Neyembo Mikanda proceeds pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 24). He
commenced this action on May 28, 2019. (D.I. 2). The Court
proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
initial pleading is titled "declaration of Royal
Immunity & Liability Settlement" and seeks to
withdraw two criminal cases filed against him; one filed in
2008 in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey and the other filed in 2015 in the General
District Court of Stafford County, Virginia. See United
States v. Mikanda, Crim. No. 08-0130-NLH (D.N.J.);
Commonwealth v. Mikanda, No. GC15021712-00 (Va. Gen.
Dist. Ct. 2015). (D.I. 2). While not clear, he seems to seek
compensation for "mistaken imprisonment." (D.I. 2
at § 6). Plaintiff states that "he shall be the
40th Verse President and King for the Life of the
United States." (Id. at 2). He states that he
"died and rose again", "will live and
live", "will rule and rule", and "will
reign and reign." (Id.). These are just a few
of the numerous disjointed and fantastical allegations raised
seems that he seeks compensation from the United States and
others based upon the eighteen proposed orders he filed
against various individuals and entities each referencing a
sum of money due him. (See D.I. 4 through D.I. 21).
Plaintiff also filed a "Sentence of Imprisonment"
that contains disturbing content. (D.I. 22).
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).
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) (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 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).
proceeds pro se and, therefore, 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
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Under Rule 12(b)(6),
a motion to dismiss may be granted 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.'" Daw's v.
Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir.
2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In
addition, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show
that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v.
City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014). A complaint may not
be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal
theory supporting the claim asserted. See Id. at 10.
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court should
follow a three-step process: (1) consider the elements
necessary to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that are
merely conclusions and therefore are not well-pleaded factual
allegations; and (3) accept any well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and determine whether they plausibly
state a claim. See Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp.,
809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016); Williams v. BASF
Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014).
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."
the Court construes pro se filings liberally,
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble.429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976)),
Plaintiffs Complaint states no recognizable causes of action.
The Court finds that the Complaint contains fantastical
and/or delusional claims that are insufficient to withstand
the Court's evaluation for frivolity dismissal under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Denton v. Hernandez,504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (complaint may be dismissed as
lacking a basis in fact if premised upon allegations that are
fanciful, fantastic, and delusional); Golden v.
Coleman,429 Fed.Appx. 73 (3d Cir. 2011). After
reviewing the;Complaint and ...