BLD-269 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-2246
___________
ASIA JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
CHRISTOPHER WYLIE; ALEKSANDR KOGAN; JOHN BOLTON;
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-00415)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
____________________________________
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
Asia Johnson appeals the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint as
frivolous. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
In her complaint, Johnson named Aleksandr Kogan, Christopher Wylie, John
Bolton, and Cambridge Analytica as defendants. She asserted that the basis for
jurisdiction was the First Amendment and “royal law.” In the statement of the claim, she
wrote, “2016 my facebook was took with only police access all my information was
exposed my address my phone number for me and my family photos of us my son and I
ID was exposed.” The District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte before service
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Johnson filed a timely notice of
appeal.
Our review of a District Court decision dismissing a complaint as frivolous is
plenary. Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990). 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). The District Court may
dismiss a complaint 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). Johnson alleged no specific actions taken by the defendants
which caused her any harm. Thus, she failed to state a claim against the defendants. 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
2
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
the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.
3