PHILADELPHIA – A panel of a federal appellate court has dismissed as frivolous complaints filed by a woman against U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton, Cambridge Analytica and its founder Aleksandr Kogan, noted whistleblower Christopher Wylie and Queen Elizabeth II.
On Aug. 2, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit judges L. Felipe Restrepo, Stephanos Bibas and Richard L. Nygaard dismissed the aforementioned litigations brought by Asia Johnson of Munhall against the series of listed defendants.
In one complaint, Johnson named Kogan, Wylie, Bolton, and Cambridge Analytica as defendants, citing the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and “royal law.” In the statement of the claim, Johnson wrote that in 2016, access to her Facebook account was compromised, resulting in her personal information and family photographs being “exposed.”
In the other complaint, Johnson alleged that America was having “a constitutional crisis," and that Democrats and Republicans were failing to provide clean air and water to the City of Pittsburgh. As relief, she requested that the infrastructure be fixed and the nation restored.
The District Court dismissed the pair of complaints prior to service as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). In response, Johnson filed a timely notice of appeal to the District Court’s dismissal of both cases.
“We agree with the District Court that Johnson’s complaint was properly dismissed under Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Johnson alleged no specific actions taken by the defendants which caused her any harm. Thus, she failed to state a claim against the defendants. Nor did the District Court err in not allowing Johnson to amend her complaint,” the Third Circuit said.
“We agree with the District Court that Johnson’s [second] complaint was properly dismissed under Section 1915(e)(2)(B). While Johnson named Queen Elizabeth as the sole defendant, she listed no actions taken by Queen Elizabeth which caused Johnson any harm. Thus, she failed to state a claim against the Queen.”
The Third Circuit said that while generally a plaintiff should be given leave to amend a complaint subject to dismissal, the District Court “correctly determined that allowing Johnson leave to amend her complaint would have been futile” and “based on her allegations, there are no additional facts Johnson could plead that would overcome the deficiencies in her complaint[s].”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit cases 18-2246 & 18-2200
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania cases 2:18-cv-00415 & 2:18-cv-00611
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at email@example.com