Free Order Dismissing Case (1915) - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—00234-SLR Document 5 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PAUL CULLOIVI, )
Plaintiff, 5
v. g Civil Action N0. 07-234-SLR
THE BOEING COMPANY, {
Defendant. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this \iX*`day of June, 2007, having screened the case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915;
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff Paul Cullom, tiled this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
2. Standard of Review. When a litigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 provides for dismissal under certain circumstances. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)
provides that the court may dismiss a complaint, at any time, if the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
3. In performing the court's screening function under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court

Case 1:07-cv—00234-SLB Document 5 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
applies the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Fullman v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., No. 4:07CV-000079, 2007 WL 257617 (M.D. Pa.
Jan. 25, 2007) (citing Weiss v Colley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7“‘ Cir. 2000). The court
must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, —U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007);
Christopher v. Harbug, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). Additionally, a complaint must
contain "‘a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
reIief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the. . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests."’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, —U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). A complaint does not need detailed
factual allegations, however "a plaintiffs obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation ofthe elements of a cause of action will not do." gig at 1965 (citations
omitted). The "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." gt, (citations omitted). 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 v. Pardus, —U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
4. Discussion. Plaintiff brings this suit against The Boeing Company, alleging it
conspired and discriminated against him in violation of his civil rights under § 1983, and
that "the facts are complicated and extensive." Plaintiff alleges defendant is guilty of
2

Case 1:07-cv—00234-SLB Document 5 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
fraud, waste, and abuse. He alleges defendant conspired against him in connection with
a case filed in a Washington State Court.
5. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege "the violation of
a right secured by the Constitution or laws ofthe United States and must show that the
alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law."
_A@, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citing Parratt v. Taylor,_451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981))
(overruled in part on other grounds Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986)).
To act under "color of state law" a defendant must be "clothed with the authority of state
law." , 487 U.S. at 49. As alleged, The Boeing Company is a corporation
incorporated in Delaware. Nothing in the complaint alleges that defendant acted on
behalf of a state or that it is "clothed with the authority of state law." g Reichley v.
Pennsylvania Dep’t of Agric., 427 F.3d 236, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2005); Biener v. Calio, 361
F.3d 206, 216-17 (3d Cir. 2004). inasmuch as The Boeing Company is not at state
actor, plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action pursuant to § 1983. As currently
presented, the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact and must, therefore,
be denied as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
6. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the complaint is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Amendment ofthe complaint would be futile. Sag
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City of
Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976).

3