CLD-044 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-2681
___________
ASIA JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-18-cv-00970)
District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 29, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 20, 2018)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Asia Johnson appeals pro se the District Court’s dismissal of her action under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
For the reasons set forth below, we will grant the Government’s motion and summarily
affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
This is the eighth civil action that Johnson has brought in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in 2018. See D.C. Order at pg. 2 (listing
other actions). In this complaint, Johnson alleged that, at the request of a group backing
then-candidate Donald Trump, she had supported his candidacy, but with the
understanding that he would pass over his presidency to Shawn Carter. Then “President
Trump honored me forcing me into a self sacrifice putting me into the honor system
leaving me homeless and me and my family under attack.” Compl. at pg. 5. As
damages, she sought to be awarded the Medal of Freedom and a declaration that “a black
life is worth 3,364,875 million.” Id. at 7.
Because Johnson applied to proceed in forma pauperis, the District Court screened
her complaint under § 1915(e)(2). The Court concluded that “Plaintiff’s rambling and
incoherent Complaint lacks arguable merit in fact or law,” and therefore dismissed it as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. D.C. Order at pgs. 3-4. Johnson filed a timely
notice of appeal. 1 In this Court, the Government has filed a motion to summarily affirm
the District Court’s judgment.
1
Johnson also filed a post-judgment motion, which the District Court denied. Because
Johnson did not file a new or amended notice of appeal embracing the District Court’s
order denying that motion, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the order dismissing the
complaint. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249,
253-54 (3d Cir. 2008).
2
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary
review over the District Court’s dismissal of Johnson’s complaint. See Allah v.
Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000); Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d
Cir. 1990).
After reviewing Johnson’s filings in the District Court and on appeal, we agree
that the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and fact, and we therefore conclude that
the District Court correctly dismissed the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (a complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact,” which “embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-33 (1992) (a complaint’s factual allegations are “clearly baseless” if they are
“fanciful, fantastic, [or] delusional” (citations omitted)). Moreover, while generally a
plaintiff should be granted leave to cure the deficiencies of a complaint subject to
dismissal, we agree with the District Court’s determination that such allowance would
have been futile in this case. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108
(3d Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment.
3