IN RE: JOHNSON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-CV-5258

TARANI ALIKE JOHNSON :

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Tarani Alike Johnson brings this pro se civil action. Johnson has moved to

proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Johnson leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and the case will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Johnson submitted to the Court a “Notice of Registration of Foreign Judgment Pursuant

to [28 U.S.C. § 1963].” ECF No. 1. Attached to the Notice is a document from a New York

state court that appears to reflect, inter alia, a name change. Although this submission was

deficient as a complaint in a civil action in a number of respects, in an abundance of caution and

in accordance with its responsibilities pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, the Clerk of

Court treated Johnson’s submission as a complaint, opened a civil action, and assigned the matter

to the undersigned for review. Because Johnson failed to file a proper complaint as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, and because she failed to pay the required fees or seek leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, she was ordered to do so. Johnson subsequently filed a “Petition

for the Decree of a Full Accounting of, and Equitable Right of Redemption to Wind up the

Tarani Alike Johnson, Estate,” which the Court construes as an Amended Complaint. ECF No.

5. Johnson submitted other miscellaneous pleadings1 as well as an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. ECF No. 16.

Johnson’s Amended Complaint is fanciful and largely unintelligible, consisting of

irrelevant legalisms, oblique references, and meaningless jargon.2 Named as Defendant is

“Michelle Henry dba MICHELLE HENRY, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPUTY

ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.” Johnson attempts to invoke this Court’s equity jurisdiction

in accordance with the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Holy Bible. She appears to refer

obliquely to alleged wrongs that have been committed against her, but she does so in a manner

that makes it impossible to decipher the basis of the legal claims she seeks to bring. While the

vague, alleged wrongs may concern a judgment against her and writ of execution directing her to

1 ECF No. 6 (“Request for Emergency Hearing with Lord Chancellor Beetlestone under 50 U.S.C. §4332”); ECF

No. 7 (“Notice of Appearance”); ECF No. 8 (“Cease and Desist Order”); ECF No. 9 (“Notice of Trustees”); ECF

No. 10 (“Notice of Beneficial Owner and Guardian”); ECF No. 11 (“Instructions to Handle Claim”); ECF No. 12

(“Peace Offer and Prayer of Forgiveness”); ECF No. 13 (“Claim for Property from Alien Property Custodian”); ECF

No. 14 (“Affidavit of Intentional Act”); ECF No. 15 (“Affidavit of Intentional Act”).

2 Although she references an estate and various trusts throughout her submissions, the Court understands Tarani

Alike Johnson, the individual, to be the Plaintiff. The Court notes that “[a]lthough an individual may represent

herself or himself pro se, a non-attorney may not represent other parties in federal court.” Murray ex rel. Purnell v.

City of Philadelphia, 901 F.3d 169, 170 (3d Cir. 2018). “The federal courts ‘have routinely adhered to the general

rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.’” Gunn v.

Credit Suisse Grp. AG, 610 F. App’x 155, 157 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.,

546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008)). In the context of an estate, “[i]f an estate has one or more beneficiaries

besides the administrator, then the case is not the administrator’s own because the interests of other parties are

directly at stake,” such that a non-attorney administrator or executor may not represent the estate. Murray, 901 F.3d

at 171. Furthermore, an artificial entity may only appear in federal court through licensed counsel. See Rowland v.

California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 196, 201-02 (1993) (“It has been the law

for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed

counsel. As the courts have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities.” (citations

omitted)); see also Marin v. Leslie, 337 F. App’x 217, 220 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (trustee pursuing claims on

behalf of a trust may not appear pro se).

Furthermore, only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See

Rowland, 506 U.S. at 196 (neither an estate nor a trust may proceed in forma pauperis). Thus, if an estate is the

plaintiff in a case, licensed counsel must enter an appearance on its behalf and it must pay the necessary fees to

commence a civil action. Because the Court ultimately determines that the allegations regarding artificial entities

are frivolous, construing the Amended Complaint liberally, the Court will deem the case brought by Johnson the

individual so that she may qualify to proceed pro se and enjoy the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis.

sell a property (see ECF No. 17), Johnson does not set forth any valid basis as to the nature of

her legal claims.

To illustrate: Johnson claims that she is “the Heir, Sole Beneficiary and equitable Owner

by nature of the Name and Estate of ‘TARANI ALIKE JOHNSON’ and all derivations of that

name similarly scribed compatinum.” She further contends that she has been “fatally

prejudiced . . . due to mistaken identity, and a presumption of civil death,” and that “multiple

trusts have arisen and are now established as a result of both direct in personum interactions as

well as false presumptive claims levied against the TARANI ALIKE JOHNSON, ESTATE by

multiple third party interlopers and trespassers onto the estate, whereby trust res has been

tampered with.” She refers to herself as a “private, non-statutory inhabitant and ‘natural’ person

on the land of Philadelphia County, state of Pennsylvania” and calls herself an “heir to the

‘Promise’ and Beneficiary of the Creator’s Promise according to the book of Galatians Chapter 4

verses 1 through 7.” Referring to the document from a New York court appearing to reflect a

name change, attached to her initial filing, Johnson claims that she “has terminated the

Guardian/Ward relationship between herself and the State of New York and Pennsylvania as

demonstrated by the Exemplified Decree issued to her on October 22, 2022 (Supreme Court

State of New York, Queens County; Cause # 700534/2021).” Johnson further asserts,

incorrectly, that this “decree” was “accepted and lodged as a Foreign Judgement in this court.”

Johnson seeks to have the Court “enforce the Foreign Decree . . . and conduct a full

accounting of the TARANI ALIKE JOHNSON®©, ESTATE for the total valuation of trust res”

and, inter alia, to “grant full equitable relief of all debts and encumbrances attached to the

estate.”

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court will grant Johnson leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that

she is incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) applies. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires the Court to dismiss the Amended

Complaint if it is frivolous. 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). The use of the term “frivolous” in

Section 1915 “embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual

allegation.” Id. Section 1915 accords judges “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the

complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly

baseless. . . .” Id. at 327. “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts

alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]” Denton v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 33 (1992). A claim 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). As Johnson is proceeding

pro se, the Court construes her allegations liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir.

2021).

III. DISCUSSION

Johnson’s Amended Complaint, even when liberally construed, is frivolous and fails to

state a legal basis for any claim within the Court’s jurisdiction. Other than irrelevant assertions,

misplaced legalisms, and sovereign-citizen verbiage, Johnson asserts no facts to demonstrate any

viable cause of action. “[L]egal-sounding but meaningless verbiage commonly used by

adherents to the so-called sovereign citizen movement” has been rejected by courts throughout

the country as legally frivolous. See United States v. Wunder, 2019 WL 2928842, at *5 (D.N.J.

July 8, 2019) (listing cases); Thompson v. Yolanda Denise Thompson Soc. Sec. Tr., 2020 WL

4570707, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2020) (dismissing complaint using sovereign citizen verbiage

as frivolous); see also Banks v. Fla., 2019 WL 7546620, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2019), report

and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 108983 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2020) (“[T]he arguments and

legal theories espoused by sovereign citizens have been consistently rejected as ‘utterly

frivolous, patently ludicrous, and a waste of . . . the court’s time, which is being paid by hard-

earned tax dollars.’” (citation omitted)).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Johnson’s Amended Complaint with

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as legally frivolous. Leave to amend will not

be given as any attempt to amend would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293

F.3d 103, 108, 110 (3d Cir. 2002). An appropriate order will follow.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J.

__________________________________________

WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.