# Schwager v. Norristown State Hospital

> District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · December 5, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10406386

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 5, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10406386

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that an action commences when a plaintiff pays the fees or following a determination that the litigant is entitled to in forma pauperis

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRIAN CHARLES SCHWAGER, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-CV-3866
:
NORRISTOWN STATE :
HOSPITAL, et al., :
Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM
PAPPERT, J. December 5, 2023
Brian Charles Schwager, a pro se litigant confined at Norristown State Hospital,
sued Norristown State Hospital and its CEO, Jessie Keith. (ECF No. 1, “Compl.”)
Schwager also moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 14.) For the following
reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint in its entirety as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
and (ii).
I
Schwager submitted a Complaint and an unsigned, incomplete application to
proceed in forma pauperis which was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on September 29, 2023. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The case was
subsequently transferred to this Court. (See ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7.)1 By Order dated

1 Although the Complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis are difficult to read, the
documents list “Brian Charles Schwager” as the plaintiff, indicating that this is his birth
name. (See ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The documents also reference “Adam Schwager” and indicate
that this is his “informant name.” (See id.) Additionally, the caption of the Complaint lists
a docket number for a criminal case in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
for defendant Adam Schwager. (See ECF No. 1 at 1 (listing Commonwealth v. Schwager,
CP-46-CR-0004869-2023 (C.P. Montgomery).) The publicly available docket reflects that
Adam Schwager is currently confined at Norristown State Hospital. Thus, it appears from
October 10, 2023, Schwager was directed either to pay the required filing fee, or to file a
completed, signed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a certified copy of his
prisoner account statement (or institutional equivalent) showing all deposits,
withdrawals, and a current balance, from any correctional facility in which he was
confined for the six-month period from March 29, 2023 to September 29, 2023,
reflecting account activity from that time period. (See ECF No. 9.)2 Since the filing of
the Order, Schwager has submitted various letters and miscellaneous documents to the
Court. (See ECF Nos. 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17.) While he filed a second application to

proceed in forma pauperis, he has not submitted the required account statement. (See
ECF No. 14.) Schwager’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, therefore, is
incomplete pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
II
Until recently, the Court would have been precluded from addressing Schwager’s
pleading unless and until he either paid the fees or was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. See Urrutia v. Harrisburg Cty. Police Dep’t, 91 F.3d 451, 458 & n.13
(3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that an action commences when a plaintiff pays the fees or
following a determination that the litigant is entitled to in forma pauperis); see also

Francis v. State of N.J. Office of Law Guardian, 289 F. App’x 472, 474 (3d Cir. 2008)

the filings that Brian Charles Schwager and Adam Schwager are the same individual, who
is in state custody, currently confined at Norristown State Hospital.

2 The October 10, 2023 Order also directed the Clerk of Court to restrict the Complaint
(ECF No. 1) to Case Participants View Only because it contains, inter alia, a social security
number. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 prohibits litigants in a civil action from
submitting documents containing personal information including complete social security
numbers and full birthdates. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. Schwager was directed to refrain from
including sensitive personal information in future filings (See ECF No. 9,) but continues to
do so.
(per curiam) (explaining that district court erred in addressing complaint before IFP
was granted, because the “complaint was not yet subject to dismissal”). However, in
Brown v. Sage, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit announced a
“flexible approach” that permits the screening of cases filed by prisoners pursuant 28
U.S.C. § 1915A even if the prisoner has neither paid the fees nor been granted in forma
pauperis status. 941 F.3d 655, 660 (3d Cir. 2019) (en banc) (“[W]e hold that a court has
the authority to dismiss a case ‘at any time,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), regardless of the
status of a filing fee; that is, a court has the discretion to consider the merits of a case

and evaluate an IFP application in either order or even simultaneously.”). This
approach “permits courts to move early to screen complaints in order to conserve
judicial resources.” Id. Here, the Court concludes that it would be more efficient to
screen Schwager’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) prior to addressing his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Section 1915A requires that the Court “review, before docketing, if feasible or, in
any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which
a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In doing so, the Court must dismiss a

complaint or any portion thereof that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.” Id. § 1915A(b)(1). 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 § 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). It is legally baseless if “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”
Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995).
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1) is governed by the
same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). See Neal v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. 96-7923, 1997 WL 338838, at *1
(E.D. Pa. June 19, 1997); see also Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.

1999). Accordingly, the Court must determine whether the complaint contains
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). “At this early
stage of the litigation,’ ‘[the Court will] accept the facts alleged in [the pro se] complaint
as true,’ ‘draw[] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff’s] favor,’ and ‘ask only
whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to state a
plausible [] claim.’” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)). Conclusory allegations do not
suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The standards for dismissal based on frivolity and for

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), which permit
courts to “assess the merits of the lawsuits ‘at any time,’” regardless of whether any
filing fee or portion thereof has been paid, Brown, 941 F.3d at 657 (quoting §
1915(e)(2)), are the same.
III
Schwager’s Complaint is brief and largely indecipherable. It consists of the first
and last pages of a form complaint, as well as several nearly illegible handwritten
pages. (See Compl. at 1-5.) The caption of the Complaint lists “Norristown State
Hospital, N.S.H./C.E.O. Jessie Keith” as Defendants. (Id. at 1.) Schwager references a
state court docket number in a criminal matter and appears to assert that the FBI
transported him, perhaps for the purpose of various medical procedures. (Id. at 1-5.)
He also references “federal retardation” class actions. (Id. at 3, 5.)
Having reviewed Schwager’s submission in its entirety, the Court cannot discern
the factual or legal bases for any claims against the Defendants, or the relief Schwager
seeks. Even under a careful reading and liberal construction of the Complaint,

Schwager has not alleged how the named Defendants have violated his rights and there
is no legal theory on which he can rely. Due to the nature of the pleading, the
Complaint fails to provide fair notice of the grounds upon which Schwager’s claims
against each Defendant rest. Further, the discernable portions of the Complaint do not
establish any viable legal claim. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety. See Flowers v. Delaware, No. 22-1877, 2022 WL 2800814, at *1 (3d Cir. July
18, 2022) (affirming dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B) without
leave to amend).
IV

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Schwager’s Complaint with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) as
legally and factually frivolous, and for failure to state a claim. Having reviewed the
docket in its entirety, including all of the materials that Schwager submitted, the Court
concludes that leave to amend would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,
293 F.3d 103, 108, 110 (3d Cir. 2002).
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10406386. Public record. Not legal advice.