ALLAH v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MINISTER ALIF ALLAH, : Plaintiff, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-CV-735 : THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al., : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM YOUNGE, J. MAY 11, 2021 Plaintiff Minister Alif Allah has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming as Defendants The Walt Disney Company, WPVI-TV, Nydia Han, and Cheryl Mettendorf. (ECF No. 1.) Allah has also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) For the following reasons, Allah will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and his Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS1 According to the Complaint, the named Defendants: published on television and on social media a series of religiously discriminatory videos, photos, and articles on November 26, 2019; December 17, 2019; and December 30, 2019 against the Plaintiff based on fraud, the FBI’s counter intelligence program, (cointellpro) bad jacketing that jeopardizes my life, liberty, religion, ministry, and business (ECF No. 1 at 3.)2 Allah alleges that each Defendant knew or should have known that their actions were wrong, and that each Defendant “gained a financial benefit . . . by selling their religious propaganda to advertising agencies.” (Id.) 1 The allegations set forth in this Memorandum are taken from Allah’s Complaint. 2 The Court adopts the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM/ECF docketing system. Based on the foregoing, Allah asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against each Defendant in their individual and official capacities. He alleges that their conduct violated his constitutional rights to religious freedom, equal protection, due process, priviliege [sic], freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom from unusual searches and seizures, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at 2.) He claims that as a result of the Defendants’ conduct, he suffered false arrest, guns pointed at his head, attempted murder, anxiety and depression. (Id. at 4.) He seeks recovery of $2 million in compensatory damages, $10 million in punitive damages, and removal of himself from the Defendants’ public social media accounts. (Id.) II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because Allah appears to be unable to pay the filing fee in this matter, the Court will grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Id. As Allah is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). III. DISCUSSION “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “A civil rights action brought [under] section 1983 is sustainable against state actors only.” Boyd v. Pearson, 346 Fed. App’x 814, 816 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Bright v. Westmoreland Cty., 380 F.3d 729, 736 (3d Cir. 2004). Allah’s claims are not plausible because none of the named Defendants is alleged to be a state actor or acting under color of state law. Rather, the Defendants appear to be private citizens, a television station, and a corporation. As a result, Allah’s claims must be dismissed. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Allah’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, and his Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). No leave to amend will be granted because any amendment against the named Defendants would be futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108, 110 (3d Cir. 2002). An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT: /s/ John M. Younge _________________________________________ JOHN M. YOUNGE, J.

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:21-cv-00735

Filed Date: 5/11/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/27/2024