Newman v. Musk, No. 1:2023cv00639 - Document 5 (D. Del. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/28/2023. (nms)

Download PDF

Newman v. Musk Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SHANTELL D. NEWMAN, Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 23-639-RGA V. ELON MUSK, Defendant. Shantell Newman , New Castle , Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION lf , November 2023 Wilmington , Delaware Dockets.Justia.com A~ i . istrict Judge: Plaintiff Shantell D. Newman appears prose and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D .I. 4) . She commenced this action on June 12, 2023 . (D .I. 2) . Court proceeds to screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Elon Musk has a brain implant company that has received approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration , the elderly can be a key target, and she would like information about his target audiences under the Freedom of Information Act. For relief she requests "FOIA. " (D .I. 2 at 7) . 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." Ba// 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 prose, her pleading is liberally construed and her 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 fa ils to state a claim . See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d . 366 , 374 (3d Cir. 2020). 1 Rather, a claim is deemed frivolous only where it rel ies on an "' indisputably meritless legal theory' or a 'clearly baseless' or 'fantastic or delusional' factual scenario ."' Id. 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 At/. 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 thei r 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. Iqbal, 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 jud icial experience and common sense ." Id. 2 DISCUSSION Plaintiffs Complaint, even when viewed in the light most favorable to her, is frivolous and fails to state a claim. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not apply to private citizens . Thus, the allegations 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). Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under any conceivable legal theory, and there is no plausible manner in which she could state a claim based on her allegations . Amendment is therefore futile. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Amendment is futile . An appropriate Order will be entered. 3

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.