The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HAMLET GARCIA, II, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Case No. 2:20-cv-02657-JDW
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. :
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM
Hamlet Garcia, II refuses either to pay a filing fee or to complete an application to proceed
without paying the fee. He has, however, filed a motion to proceed without paying the fee. The
Court therefore has the power to consider whether his claim is frivolous. It is, so the Court will
dismiss it.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Allegations In The Complaint
Garcia’s submission is nonsensical. He refers to himself as “i: a man” and describes himself
as a “prosecutor.” He refers to himself as the “Garcia Court.” (ECF No. 2 at 3.) He has named as
Defendants the United States, President Trump, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, Judge Gerald
McHugh, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw, James Duff (the director of the U.S.
Administrative Office of the Courts), and Joseph Evers (Court Administrator for the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas). He has titled one paper with the word “Trespass” but makes no
allegations about a trespass. He references a “forgery” but makes no allegations about a forgery.
He includes an “order” that “directs” this Court to issue a final resolution of the charges against
Mr. Garcia in Philadelphia Municipal Court case no. MC-51-CR-533-2019. He demands “billions
of dollars” of compensation. (Id. at 1.) He also demands that all documents have a “wet-ink”
signature, requires documents to be “dubbed” in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style,
and demands that the Court treat as counterfeit all documents submitted in “Dog-Latin” or another
“debased language.” (Id. at 3-4.)
B. Procedural History
Mr. Garcia filed this complaint on June 4, 2020. He also filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis, i.e., without paying filing fees. On June 19, 2020, the Court issued an Order
directing Mr. Garcia to sign his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and return it within 30 days
or to pay the filing fee. He did not respond directly to the Motion. However, on July 9, 2020, he
filed an “Order” purporting to reject the Court’s Order because it has a typed signature and
demanding damages of $1 per minute. He also demands that the Court address him as “Lord
Garcia.” (ECF No. 5 at 2.)
II. ANALYSIS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a federal court may dismiss an action seeking to proceed
without paying a filing fee sua sponte if the action is frivolous or malicious.” See 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2). 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).
Mr. Garcia’s claims are frivolous. The Court is not sure what Mr. Garcia means to assert.
To the extent he asserts claims for trespass or forgery, he has not pled any facts to support those
claims. To the extent he is asking the Court to intervene in a criminal prosecution in Philadelphia
Municipal Court, he has not shown a basis for that intervention, and the doctrine of Younger
abstention precludes the Court from doing so in any event. See Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs,
571 U.S. 69, 73 (2013).
III. CONCLUSION
Mr. Garcia’s claims are frivolous. The Court will dismiss them. However, because they
fail in part for lack of detail, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice. An appropriate Order
follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joshua D. Wolson
JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J.
Dated: July 23, 2020