Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: CLD-012 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-2330 _ ASIA JOHNSON, Appellant v. YOUNG MONEY _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 18-cv-00605) District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti _ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 18, 2018 Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRIC
Summary: CLD-012 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-2330 _ ASIA JOHNSON, Appellant v. YOUNG MONEY _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 18-cv-00605) District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti _ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 18, 2018 Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA..
More
CLD-012 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-2330
___________
ASIA JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
YOUNG MONEY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 18-cv-00605)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 18, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed December 20, 2018)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Asia Johnson appeals the District Court’s dismissal of her action as legally
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Because we conclude that this appeal
lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Johnson’s complaint named Young Money as a defendant, identifying herself as a
resident of Pennsylvania and Young Money as a resident of Texas, and asserting federal
court diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Johnson alleged that
“Baby E from Young Money has been making music about me. Baby E and I used to date
befor his identity change his police uncle helped with he fake his death and I being
harassed and Nicki Minaj keeps using my work Baby E (Victor Robinson) needs help
slaves to the label to harass me having people jump me and follow me.” (Complaint, ¶III
Statement of Claim.) As relief, Johnson stated, “I just want them to stop and let the truth
be told. Stop helping people fake deaths and stop the 2 girls they picked to be my actors
using artificial intelligence Kenneka Jenkins and BreeAunna Poindexter the industry is
involved.” (Id., ¶IV Relief.)1 Johnson also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The District Court granted Johnson’s in forma pauperis motion. By
memorandum opinion and separate order entered on May 16, 2018, the District Court
dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The
District Court further concluded that amendment of the complaint would be futile.
Johnson appeals.
1
As an exhibit to the complaint, Johnson attached a letter and a certificate dated April 25,
2018, written on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, concerning Johnson’s inclusion in
the Republican Presidential Honor Roll.
2
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary
review over the District Court’s dismissal of Johnson’s complaint as frivolous. See
Roman v. Jeffes,
904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990). The District Court determined that
Johnson’s claims and relief sought are based on a fantastic or delusional factual scenario,
see Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989), concluding that the complaint was
frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(e)(2)(B). See
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325 (a
complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”). We agree
with the District Court’s assessment of the allegations contained in the complaint.
Moreover, while generally a plaintiff should be granted leave to cure the deficiencies of a
complaint subject to dismissal, we agree with the District Court’s determination that such
allowance would have been futile in this case. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,
293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
For the above reasons, we will we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
3