United States District Court, D. Delaware
Downey, McLean, Virginia. Pro Se Plaintiff.
CONNOLLY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Mark Downey ("Plaintiff"), proceeds pro se
and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperise(D.I. 7) He filed this Complaint as a
qui tarn action under the False Claims Act,
presumably pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 286-287 and 31
U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733,  and the Dodd-Frank
(D.I. 3) The Complaint also invokes numerous federal criminal
and civil statutes. In addition, Plaintiff filed a combined
motion to quash sovereign immunity, motion to accommodate the
disabled, motion to expedite and seal, motion to refer
criminal case to the U.S. Attorney, and motion to designate
the primary defendant for the defendant class action claim.
(D.I. 1) The Court proceeds to review and screen the matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).
crux of the Complaint, which is 77 pages of text purporting
to include 45 counts, is that Plaintiff seeks to bring a
"qui tarn action under "the False Claims
Act and the Dodd Frank Act to generate revenues for the
Federal Government to dramatically reduce the mounting $21
Trillion Federal Budget Deficit for our Children's
Children; 70% for the Federal Government and 3-0% for the
Disabled Plaintiff." (D.I. 3 at 4) Plaintiff seeks $1,
063.48 billion and, in the claim for relief (D.I. 3 at ¶
IV), states that his work of five years was illegally
destroyed by the Federal Government, he received no
compensation and "the unjustified whistleblower claim
denial recourse is to file suit." (D.I. 3 at ¶ IV;
D.I. 3-1 at 7)
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 U.S. 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 can
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." Daws 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, 574 U.S. 10 (2014). A complaint may not be
dismissed for imperfect statements of the legal theory
supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 10.
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) assume the veracity of any
well-pleaded factual allegations and then determine whether
those allegations 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
has filed this action as a qui tarn proceeding under
the False Claims Act. It appears that Plaintiff seeks
statutory proceeds of the qui tam action or
settlement of the claim under 31 U.S.C. ...