United States District Court, D. Delaware
William Lee Grant, II, Springfield, Illinois. Pro Se
ANDREWS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
William Lee Grant, II proceeds pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I.
5). This action was commenced on June 3, 2019. (D.I. 1). The
Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
are numerous attachments to the Complaint. Most of the
allegations are disjointed and fantastical. In the most lucid
section of his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was
subjected to a hostile work environment when he was employed
by the State of Illinois. (D.I. 1 at 1). Plaintiff alleges
that he "was retaliated against for filing a Civil
Rights Complaint and an Ethics Complaint in 2012 with the
State of Illinois, that he was denied Federal unemployment
benefits from the Illinois Department of Employment Security
in 2015, and that he was "blacklisted" all over
America. (D.I. 1 at 1-2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
U.S. Department of Justice did not deny the allegations.
(Id. at 2). Plaintiff seeks $99 trillion in
compensatory damages. (Id. at 5).
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). 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 Const. 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, Plaintiffs
Complaint states no recognizable causes of action. The Court
finds 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). In addition, the Court notes
that Plaintiff has been recognized as a frequent filer of
frivolous litigation in federal courts throughout the country
and he has made the same claims in many of his filings.
See Grant v. United States Department of the
Treasury, 2018 WL 3748415 (E.D. Tex. 2018) (noting that
Plaintiff had filed at least seventeen complaints in various
district courts making similar allegations related to a
hostile work environment claim).
Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that employees
or officials of DOJ committed wrongful acts for which the
United States may be held liable, and he has not identified a
source of such liability. Apart from the pleading deficiency,
the United States and its agencies are immune from suit for