Guy v. Pizzuti

Background

Pro se plaintiff Kenneth Carl Guy, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, filed an amended complaint against Dalton Pizzuti. The complaint alleged obstruction of justice, wire fraud, and constitutional claims involving a “polygraph examiner” and possibly a former employer. It referred to alleged “spyphone software,” a racketeering organization, an effort to prevent Guy from filing a claim against Newsmax Media Inc. with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and efforts to prevent him from obtaining new employment. The complaint also mentioned Uber Technologies as an alleged co-conspirator, although the opinion states that Guy appeared to be only an Uber user. Guy separately applied for a preliminary injunction and an order to show cause.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which allows dismissal of a complaint filed without paying the filing fee if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although pro se complaints receive a liberal reading, they still must provide a short and understandable statement of facts showing a plausible entitlement to relief.

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not meet those requirements. It described the complaint as unfocused and, at many points, unintelligible. Its length and extensive exhibits made the problem worse, and the complaint did not fairly inform the defendants what claims they would need to answer or provide an understandable statement of the case.

The court also identified additional defects. Guy appeared to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute, against private actors, but alleged no facts showing that they acted under color of state law. The court further held that 18 U.S.C. § 1505, a criminal obstruction statute, does not give a private person the right to file a civil lawsuit.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a plausible claim. It terminated the application for a preliminary injunction and order to show cause. The court noted that Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim had previously identified many of the same problems and had directed Guy to correct them in any amended complaint. Because Guy did not do so, and because the court had recently terminated his electronic filing privileges for multiple frivolous filings, the court declined to provide another opportunity to amend. The case was dismissed and ordered closed, and no further filings were permitted without the court’s prior consent. Judge Donato signed the order.