Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Steven P. Fleming v. Just Chiesa

June 28, 2012

STEVEN P. FLEMING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JUST CHIESA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle

SIMANDLE, District Judge:

OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Steven P. Fleming, representing himself, has filed a complaint demanding a jury trial to obtain relief from Defendants Just Chiesa*fn1 , Attorney General; Bill Davis, Division of Criminal Justice; and Bonnie Frasier, Division of Youth and Family Services. The Complaint involves the Plaintiff's daughter's alleged kidnapping, which government officials allegedly supported.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Docket Item 1), which was received on May 14, 2012. Because the Affidavit discloses that Plaintiff is indigent, the Court will permit the Complaint to be filed without prepayment of fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Section 1915 requires the Court to preliminarily review each complaint filed in forma pauperis and to "dismiss the case at any time if the court 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).

In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). But, under section 1915, "[a] complaint must indicate facts in support of its conclusions" or it may be dismissed as frivolous. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F. 2d 1305, 1307 (D.C. Cir. 1981)(interpreting § 1915(e)(2)'s predecessor, the former § 1915(d)).

A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (interpreting § 1915(e)(2)'s predecessor, the former § 1915(d)). The standard for evaluating whether a complaint is "frivolous" is an objective one. Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (3d Cir. 1995). "A separate standard for maliciousness is not as well established." Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Corrections, 910 F. Supp. 986, 999 (D. Del. 1995), aff'd, 111 F. 3d 125 (3d Cir. 1997), cert denied, 522 U.S. 852 (1997). But courts have identified examples of complaints that are malicious: Complaints that "attempt to vex, injure, or harass the defendant," Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086 (3d Cir. 1995); "repetitive claims and/or claims arising out of a common nucleus operative facts," El:Bey v. September Liab. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64957, *15 (D. Del. 2012); "complaint[s] that [are] plainly abusive of the judicial process," Abraham v. Danberg, 699 F. Supp. 2d 686, 688 (D. Del. 2010); and "complaint[s] that threaten[] violence or that contain[] disrespectful references to the court," Crisafi at 1309, are all malicious.

With these principles in mind, the Court turns to its analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

II. FACTUAL AND LEGAL ALLEGATIONS

The Plaintiff's two-page Complaint is confusing, lacking causes of action, factual support and, in many instances, complete sentences. The Complaint references the kidnapping of the Plaintiff's daughter and alleges that corrupt judicial officials abetted the kidnapping.

The Plaintiff demands a jury trial, claiming that "[t]he evidence of this kidnapping, can be introduce [sic] to a Jury, a Jury only." (Compl. ¶ F.) He demands a jury trial because "[a]ny impartial Judge has been well violated" (Compl. ¶ B) and "dirty Judges [are] covering the asses of their fellow Officers of the Court [and] getting into the kidnapping business" (Compl. ¶ F). The kidnapping was "under the table at Cape May Courthouse." (Compl. ¶ D.)

It appears that the Plaintiff sought relief from the Defendants, but they "ignored all letters" and "refused to address any of the allegations to this kidnapping." (Compl. ¶ C.)

The Complaint also references "money laundering," "trafficking," and a visit to Southern New Jersey to pilot for a commuter airline "[w]here I would not pilot your drugs." (Compl. ΒΆ E.) The Plaintiff's problems began when his wife ran off "with one of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.