The opinion
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NIEYA ANDIE OWUSU ANSAH, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 2:24cv1375
) Electronic Filing
RAYMOND D. JORDAN )
)
)
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2025, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum
below, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same
hereby is, GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall file [1-1] plaintiff’s complaint; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint be, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted; and
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that all pending motions be, and the same hereby are,
denied as moot.
Nieya Andie Owusu Ansah (“plaintiff”) commenced this civil action against defendant
Raymond D. Jordan by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and attaching to it a
"complaint" seeking to assert a Bivens claim for “rape, assault, kidnapping, slander” and
“[giving her a] STD.” Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Doc. No. 1-1) at p. 3. Plaintiff
identifies defendant as a “veteran” who lives in “Pittsburgh, PA.” Id. at 2. She alleges that in
2003, defendant “lace[d]” her marijuana with “drugs” and “took advantage” of her. Id. at 4.
[violent] assault” defendant perpetrated against her. Id. Plaintiff does not provide further factual
information about defendant’s employment or status at the time of the encounters or how
defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
The United State Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed the district courts
to utilize a two-step analysis to determine whether to direct service of a complaint where the
plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. First, the court must determine whether the litigant
is indigent within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Second, the court must determine
whether the complaint is frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).1 Roman v Jeffes,
904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). The court finds plaintiff to be without sufficient funds to
pay the required filing fee. Thus, she will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Next, plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and will be dismissed because it fails to establish
jurisdiction and/or state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In Neitzke, the Supreme
Court identified two types of legally frivolous complaints: (1) those based upon indisputably
meritless legal theory, and (2) those with factual contentions which are clearly baseless. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). An example of the first is where a defendant enjoys
immunity from suit, and an example of the second is a claim describing a factual scenario which
is fanciful or delusional. Id. at 328. In addition, Congress has expanded the scope of 1915 to
require that the court be satisfied that the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be
granted before it directs service; if it does not, the action shall be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
1 This provision is now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2
jurisdiction exists.” D.C. v. Pittsburgh Pub. Sch., 415 F. Supp. 3d 636, 649 (W.D. Pa. 2019)
(citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006).
A complaint that does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements must be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff
has “the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction.” D.C., 415 F. Supp.
at 648 (citing Reg’l Med. Transp., Inc. v. Highmark, Inc., 541 F. Supp 2d 718,725 (E.D. Pa.
2008).
Due to plaintiff’s pro se status, the pleading must be construed liberally. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007). Liberally construed, plaintiff appears to be
asserting her claim based on federal question jurisdiction because the parties are domiciled in the
same state, invalidating diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; (Doc. No. 1-1) p. 2.
Federal question jurisdiction is proper when an action “arises under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The entirety of plaintiff’s basis for
jurisdiction for her claims of “rape, kidnap, sexual assault, manipulation, trafficking, physical
and verbal abuse, identity threat and a gas bill over 5k” hinge on the assertion of a “Bivens”
claim arising out of the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
To establish a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must show “1) a person acting under color of law
committed the conduct at issue and 2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or
immunity protected by the U.S. Constitution or laws of the United States.” Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395 (1971).
Here, plaintiff does not overcome the first element because there are no facts asserted that
show or imply defendant was acting under color of law. Nor has she averred facts that would
establish any other basis for finding a violation of federal law. Thus, the complaint fails to make
a sufficient showing that a basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.
3
to establish federal question jurisdiction, and there is a lack of diversity between the parties,
there is a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint. And it follows that the
"complaint" must be dismissed. Compare D.C., 415 F. Supp at 649 (If the court “cannot
conclude . . . that jurisdiction requirements are met, then the court must dismiss the complaint.”)
(citing In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d at 633).
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and/or establish
subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it will be dismissed.2
s/David Stewart Cercone
David Stewart Cercone
Senior United States District Judge
cc: Nieya Andie Owusu Ansah
111 Tecumseh Street
Apartment #206
Hazlewood, PA 15207
(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)
2 Generally, a plaintiff is to be granted leave to amend where an amendment might be able to
cure the deficiencies resulting in the dismissal. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,
236 (3d Cir. 2008). This principle does not apply, however, when the record indicates that any
attempt to do so would be futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F. 3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.
2002). Here, plaintiff does not provide facts to support her claims that the “defendant” was
involved in or harmed her in a way that would give rise to a "Bivens" claim. Nor does it appear
that there is any reasonable basis to assume she might be able to do so. Therefore, plaintiff’s
claim has been dismissed and the case has been closed.
4