The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Kevin Rogers has brought this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.*fn1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court has reviewed the Complaint and Amended Complaint to identify cognizable claims. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for alleged violations of his Constitutional rights. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) He filed his Complaint on August 3, 2010, and later filed an Amended Complaint on October 13, 2010. The Court notes that this Plaintiff has filed numerous complaints in this Court over the last decade or so under various names, using either "Kevin" or "Kelvin" as his first name and "Rogers" or "Rodgers" as his last name. Every complaint has been dismissed by the Court for one reason or another.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in this case, entitled "The Maltese Falcon and The Snowman," makes a variety of claims mostly arising out of Plaintiff's arrest on or about August 4, 2008. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 25.) In addition, the Amended Complaint includes random definitions, some words in arabic, various pictures, and a variety of legal terms, rules and statutes. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 4 ("The word 'Messiah' comes from the Arabic (and Hebrew) word 'Masih' which mean to transplant anthrax-worm-parasites, biological weapon agent or chemical weapons dye agents upon the head or brain..."). As best the Court can discern, Plaintiff essentially claims he was the victim of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution by various Newark and Essex County entities.*fn2
Specifically, he alleges that a "series of 'bogus' and 'unsworn' criminal documents were filed by law enforcement official[s] against the plaintiff," and that he was then arrested under an unsworn warrant on or about August 4, 2008. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 25.) According to the warrant included in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, he was arrested on domestic violence and aggravated assault charges after his dog attacked his daughter. (Am. Compl. ¶ 25.)
Plaintiff also seems to allege that excessive force was used against him, that he has suffered various brain traumas, and that he was denied medical treatment while being held in the Essex County Correctional Facility. (Am. Compl. ¶ 16.) He claims that insects, rodents and anthrax are in his brain, due to trauma suffered during incarceration in the past, and that this and other illnesses of his were not properly treated while he was confined this time around. (Id.)
While not entirely clear, it appears from the Amended Complaint that Plaintiff was held at the Essex County Correctional Facility, after his arrest on domestic violence and aggravated assault charges, from on or about August 5, 2008 until on or about October 27, 2008. (Am. Compl. ¶ 25.) At that point it seems he was released on bail. (Id.) He is seeking, in relief, $500,000 dollars for each day he was held in Essex County Correctional Facility.
II. STANDARD FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to review a complaint in a civil action where the litigant is proceeding in forma pauperis. Specifically, the Court shall sua sponte dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is considered "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, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); see also Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990). Additionally, the Court is guided by the pleading standard set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937');">129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) in determining whether to dismiss the complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Under Twombly, dismissal is appropriate where the plaintiff has failed to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 550 U.S. at 570; see also Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). While the Court is mindful that a pro se pleading must be construed liberally in favor of the plaintiff, see Erickson v. Pardis, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007), the factual allegations must still be sufficient to raise a plaintiff's right to relief above a speculative level, see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, such that the court may "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, the Plaintiff must "provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief,'" which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which ...