The opinion of the court was delivered by: Renee Marie Bumb United States District Judge
DEWEL SMITH, Pro Se 122 Tennessee Villas, New Jersey 08251 BUMB, District Judge
Plaintiff Dewel Smith seeks to file a complaint in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This Court will grant in forma pauperis status. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), this Court has screened the Complaint for dismissal and, for the reasons set forth below, will dismiss the Complaint, without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint if Plaintiff believes he can cure the deficiencies described in this Opinion.
Plaintiff asserts violation of his constitutional rights by the State of New Jersey and Office of the Court of the State of New Jersey. He asserts the following facts, which this Court is required to regard as true for the purposes of this review. See Stevenson v. Carroll, 495 F. 3d 62, 66 (3d Cir. 2007).
I.S.P. officer made false reports and statements against a citizen of the United States. Officer refused to produce 皻 test chain of custody report (Oct. 8, 2008 and Oct. 15, 2008). I have -drug hair test chain of custody report (Sept. 2008 till Dec. 2008). I.S.P. officer made false reports and statement about me disclosing to him on June 11, 2008 Social Security benefits making false report and statements causing mental and emotional terrorism. (Docket Entry #1, p. 7.)
Plaintiff maintains that the State of New Jersey violated his constitutional rights by employing officers that made false reports and statements and employing officers that failed to report officers that made false reports and statements. (Docket Entry #1, p. 4.) He contends that the office of the New Jersey Courts similarly violated his rights by employing people who made false reports and statements, and employing persons who failed to report officers making such false reports. (Id. at 4-5.)
For violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief ordering the F.B.I. to investigate the state and municipal courts of New Jersey, the police, public defenders, social services, prosecutor, and requiring alcohol/drug testing to be performed by a private physician or laboratory. (Docket Entry #1, p. 8.)
II. STANDARD FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996), requires the Court, prior to docketing or as soon as practicable after docketing, to review a complaint in a civil action in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis or a prisoner seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. The PLRA requires the Court to sua sponte dismiss any claim if the Court determines that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. A claim is frivolous if it "lacks even an arguable basis in law" or its factual allegations describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); see also Roman v. Jeffes, 904
F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990).
The pleading standard under Rule 8 was refined by the United