Asia Johnson v. Queen Elizabeth

BLD-270 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-2200
___________
ASIA JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-00611)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 19, 2018
Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 2, 2018)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Asia Johnson appeals the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint and
denying her application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. For the reasons below, we
will summarily affirm the District Court’s order with a modification.
Johnson filed a complaint naming Queen Elizabeth as a defendant. She alleged
that America was having a constitutional crisis and that Democrats and Republicans were
failing to provide clean air and water to Pittsburgh. As relief, she requested that the
infrastructure be fixed and the nation restored. The District Court sua sponte dismissed
the complaint before service as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
denied her application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. Johnson filed a timely
notice of appeal.
In determining whether to grant an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the
District Court should only consider whether the applicant is economically eligible.
Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir. 1976). It is only after leave to proceed in
forma pauperis has been granted that the analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is
undertaken, and a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous. See Deutsch v. United States,
67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n.5 (3d Cir. 1995); Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir.
1990). Thus, the District Court erred in denying the application to proceed in forma
pauperis as moot. It should have addressed the application before screening the
complaint.
Johnson indicated in her application filed in the District Court that she had income
of $653 per month and expenses of approximately $536 per month. A litigant need not
be “absolutely destitute” or contribute his or her “last dollar” in order to qualify for in
2
forma pauperis status. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339
(1948). Thus, we conclude that Johnson is financially eligible to proceed in forma
pauperis.
Our review of a District Court decision dismissing a complaint as frivolous is
plenary. Roman, 904 F.2d at 194. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or
factual reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We may also affirm the
District Court on any ground supported by the record. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184
F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). A complaint may be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for
failure to state a claim.
We agree with the District Court that Johnson’s complaint was properly dismissed
under § 1915(e)(2)(B). While Johnson named Queen Elizabeth as the sole defendant, she
listed no actions taken by Queen Elizabeth which caused Johnson any harm. Thus, she
failed to state a claim against the Queen.
Nor did the District Court err in not allowing Johnson to amend her complaint.
While generally a plaintiff should be given leave to amend a complaint subject to
dismissal, the District Court correctly determined that allowing Johnson leave to amend
her complaint would have been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). Based on her allegations, there are no additional facts Johnson
could plead that would overcome the deficiencies in her complaint.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm
3
the District Court’s judgment but direct that it modify its order to grant Johnson’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
4