Swint v. United States of America ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROBERT JAMES SWINT, : Plaintiff V. : Civil Action No, 23-722-RGA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, etal. Defendants. Robert James Swint, Clatskanie, Oregon. Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION December // , 2023 Wilmington, Delaware Plaintiff Robert James Swint appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4). He commenced this action on June 20, 2023. □□□□□ 2). The Court proceeds to screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). BACKGROUND Plaintiff sues the United States of America and President Joe Biden, claiming that Biden has been time traveling in some fashion to both the future and past to send information back to himself from the future and to change things in the past. It is unclear what relief Plaintiff seeks. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed frivolous only where it relies on an “indisputably meritless legal theory’ or a ‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.” /d. The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 11. A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint “show” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. /qba/, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” /d. DISCUSSION Plaintiff's Complaint, even when viewed in the light most favorable to him, is frivolous, fails to state a claim, and names at least one defendant that is immune to suit. First, my experience and common sense lead me to the conclusion that the allegations, to the extent that they can be understood, are legally and factually frivolous. In other words, they “are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, .. . wholly insubstantial, .. . obviously frivolous, .. . plainly unsubstantial, .. . or no longer open to discussion.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Second, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See /qbal, 556 U.S. at 67. Finally, it is well-established that an action against the United States cannot be maintained unless the United States waives its sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell (1), 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). Moreover, “[i]t is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell (Il), 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii). Amendment is futile. An appropriate Order will be entered.