JACKSON v. DUNKEN DONUTS et al, No. 2:2018cv00766 - Document 2 (W.D. Pa. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 6/12/18. (jad)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
JACKSON v. DUNKEN DONUTS et al Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN JERMAINE JACKSON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, V. DUNKEN DONUTS, et al., Defendants. 2: 18-cv-00766 MEMORANDUM OPINION Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge The Plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis status, and has filed a Complaint against a Dunkin' Donuts shop located in this District. The Plaintiff lives in Wisconsin. The papers filed by the Plaintiff are out of the ordinary, are replete mostly with Biblical references, and don't clearly demonstrate a factual basis for in forma pauperis status. Nonetheless, the Court will give the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on that issue, and such status is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1915, 1915A, the Court is obligated to do a "screening" review of the Complaint, and is to dismiss the action if the Complaint does not plausibly state a claim for relief, giving due account for the prose status of the Plaintiff. The Court has done so. Even giving the Plaintiff the most generous benefit of the doubt in applying that standard, the Court is compelled to conclude that the Complaint cannot get over that bar. The Complaint makes multiple references to the application of "God's Law", and the tension between that "Law" and the "law of man". It also makes a very, very generalized reference to some sort of images appearing on Y ouTube, without any attribution to any Defendant, or anyone in particular. The long and the short of it is that the Complaint does not remotely plausibly state any claim for relief under the law, nor does it provide any basis for the Court to conclude that any effort to amend would not Dockets.Justia.com be futile. Thus, there is no basis to grant leave to amend, and since this case does not appear to be based on the violation of any sort of civil rights law, there is no basis to stretch that principal even further to permit such an amendment even in such circumstances. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F. 3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002). Based on the Court's review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that it does not state a plausible claim for relief, and that any effort at amendment would be futile. The action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case. Mark R. Hornak United States District Judge Dated: June 12, 2018 cc: All counsel of record 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
