Raheemah Donye Shadire Whitmore v. Raheem Ryan Whitmore, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the pro se plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed her Second Amended Complaint. The court held that the allegations were factually frivolous and that the private defendants were not state actors subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, while any state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. Allegations that are irrational, wholly incredible, fanciful, or fantastical may be dismissed as factually frivolous during in forma pauperis screening.
2. A § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal right committed by a person acting under color of state law; private conduct, without state action, is not actionable under § 1983.
3. Leave to amend is not required when a complaint is dismissed as frivolous and amendment would be futile or inequitable.
4. The court lacked diversity jurisdiction over any state-law claims because the plaintiff and all defendants were alleged to be Pennsylvania citizens, and it declined supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint were factually frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the alleged defendants were private individuals and no facts established state action.
3. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over any state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims when the plaintiff and all defendants were alleged to be Pennsylvania citizens.

Disposition

dismissed