The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: :
JOHN GASSEW : Case No. 2:20-cv-2044-JDW
:
MEMORANDUM
John Gassew mailed to the Court an unintelligible, hand-written submission that does not
name a defendant or seek any particular relief. The Court will dismiss his filing as frivolous
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and give him leave to amend in case he has an actual
claim to assert.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Court knows from the return address on his Petition that that Mr. Gassew is
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Thompson, Illinois. The Court also knows that
Mr. Gassew thinks that the “petition motion should be granted.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) That is all the
Court knows.
The rest of the Petition is unintelligible nonsense. Paragraphs 1-4 each read:
deify demagogue dual duel durmant don II I I kween queen queen
consort princess princ prince princely princedom duke dukedom
duchess duchy duchies ducal judge judges civil rights prophet king
kollaway eilien Solomon Jesus John Gessew Chronicles Corinthians
Colossians luke lucifer martyr resurrection martial II deed deeth
elemented demon destroy deuce devil diabolic diagnosis diamond
dichotomy dre dollar dominate doom double doubleentedre
draconian
(Id. at 1.) Paragraphs 5-7 each read:
II I I kween queen queen consort princess princ prince princely
princedom duke dukedom duchess duchy duchies ducel Judge
Judges civil rights prophet king kollaway eilien Solomon Jesus John
Gassew Chronicles Corinthians Colossians luke lucifer martyr
resurrection martial II
(Id. at 2.) The Petition does not name a defendant, identify any wrongdoing, or seek any particular
relief.
II. ANALYSIS
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a federal court may dismiss a prisoner action sua
sponte if the action is frivolous or malicious.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. The Court can
make that determination before or after considering a Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis. See Brown v. Sage, 941 F.3d 655, 664 (3d Cir. 2019) (en banc). A complaint is frivolous
if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989),
and is legally baseless if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” Deutsch v. United
States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995). These rules often do not apply to petitions for a writ of
mandamus. When the Court received Mr. Gassew’s submission, the Clerk’s Office docketed it as
a mandamus petition because it had to classify it as something. However, the Court does not read
it as a mandamus petition and therefore concludes that the PLRA applies.
Other than suggesting that the Court should grant the motion, Mr. Gassew’s submission
says nothing. It does not name a defendant, allege a wrongdoing, or seek a remedy. It is therefore
frivolous and legally baseless. The Court will dismiss it.
III. CONCLUSION
If Mr. Gassew has a complaint, he can submit it. Because he has not done so, the Court
will dismiss his claim. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joshua D. Wolson
HON. JOSHUA D. WOLSON
Dated: June 10, 2020 United States District Judge