Free Memorandum Opinion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00538-JJF Document 4 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 1 014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JONATHAN LEE RICHES, :
Plaintiff, :
v. : Civil Action No. 07-538-JJF
SENATOR LARRY CRAIG, REP. :
MARK FOLEY, SENATOR DAVID :
VITTER, REP. BARNEY FRANK, :
ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS, KOBE :
BRYANT, R. KELLY, WARREN :
JEFFS, DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS, :
MICHAEL JACKSON, JAMES :
MCGREEVY, and WILLIAM :
JEFFERSON CLINTON, :
Defendants. :
Jonathan Lee Riches, Pro ge Plaintiff, FCI Williamsburg, Salters,
South Carolina.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
October _) , 2007
Wilmington, Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00538-JJF Document 4 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 2 of 4
= W A (Pr
Farnan, Distri% gd dge Lf

Plaintiff Jonathan Lee Riches (“Riches”), an inmate at FCI-
Williamsburg, Salters, South Carolina, who proceeds pro se, filed
this civil action entitled “Civil Complaint ‘Perverting America'
‘TRO Temporary Restraining Order' “Preliminary Injunction.’”
(D.I. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court will
dismiss the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
l9l5A(b) (l).
I . BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has taken salacious “news items of the day" to
allege that various actions taken by well—known individuals have
violated his civil rights and liberties. For example, Plaintiff
alleges he has suffered as a result of actions taken by Michael
Jackson, Roman Catholic Priests, Kobe Bryant, the Duke Lacrosse
team, Larry Craig, and Mitt Romney. Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief and ninety—nine billion dollars in damages.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
when a prisoner seeks redress from a government defendant in
a civil action, 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A provides for screening of the
complaint by the Court. Section l9l5A(b)(l) 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
2

C ( Case 1:07-cv-00538-JdF Document 4 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 3 of 4
arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
In performing its screening function, the Court applies the
standard applicable to a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Fullman v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., C.A. No.
4:07CV—000079, 2007 WL 257617 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2007) (citing
Weiss v Colley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7m 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.
Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). A complaint must contain “‘a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief,' 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 plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” gd. 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
3

Case 1:07-cv-00538-JJF Document 4 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 4 of 4
doubtful in fact).” IQ. (citations omitted). However,
fantastical or delusional claims that are clearly baseless are
insufficient to withstand the Court’s evaluation for frivolity
dismissal under § l915(e)(2)(B)(i). gee Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 5, 33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Because Plaintiff proceeds prg sg, 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).
III. ANALYSIS
The Court will not paint the lily. The Complaint does not
contain coherent claims for relief. Plaintiff’s allegations are
clearly baseless and fail to establish that he has been deprived
of a constitutionally or federally protected right by any of the
named Defendants. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the
Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Complaint will be
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Amendment of the Complaint would be futile. §gg Grayson v.
Mayyiew State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, lll (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v.
City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976). An
appropriate Order will be entered.
4

Case 1:07-cv-00538-JJF

Document 4

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00538-JJF

Document 4

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00538-JJF

Document 4

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00538-JJF

Document 4

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 4 of 4