IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SHAQUEAL E. BOWSER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) Civil Action No. 24-178-GBW ) ANTIONNE D. NAZARIO, etail., +) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shaqueal E. Bowser, Trenton, New Jersey — Pro Se Plaintiff

February 27, 2025 Wilmington, Delaware

AEE nity, WILLIAMS, U.S. District Judge: INTRODUCTION On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff Shaqueal E. Bowser filed this civil action pro se. (D.I. 2). Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4). The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). Il. BACKGROUND The Complaint raises civil rights claims, pursuant to

, based

on alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (D.I. 2 at 3.) Plaintiff's claims appear to arise from the separation of Plaintiff from her children, and Plaintiff being wrongly labeled as mentally ill and disabled. (/d. at 3- 7.) It appears that all named Defendants may have been involved, in some manner, in Plaintiff's children being placed with a legal guardian, or in foster care, in New York in or around July 2021. (Ud. at 4-6.) The Complaint also alleges sexual assault by Defendant Antionne D. Nazario (id. at 3), witchcraft by Defendant Lashawn B. Willingham in 2016 (id. at 6), and “white collar activity” and a “RICO hate crime” by unspecified Defendants (id. at 7). The Complaint further alleges that unspecified Defendants have “followed [Plaintiff,] had babies with [her] premediated[, and] tried to hurt, harm, and injure”

her. (/d.) All events allegedly took place in New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, between June 12, 2021, and August 28, 2023. (Ud. at 4.) It is unclear which events

are alleged to have happened in which locations and on what dates. Additionally, the Complaint mentions possible issues with Plaintiff’s unemployment benefits (id. at 3) and credit score (id. at 7), that Plaintiff is the legal heir to a large UK inheritance (id. at 4, 7), that Plaintiff is a whistleblower as a “King Righted Monarch” (id. at 3), and that Plaintiff is “protected by the d[i]vine source” (id. at 7). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks $20 million in U.S. Dollars and $20 million in gold bars. (Jd. at 7.) Ill, SCREENING OF COMPLAINT A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of

(e)(2)(B) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Ball v. Famiglio,

(3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also

(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny,

(3d Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, her pleading is liberally construed and her Complaint, “however inartfully

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel,

(3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed frivolous only where it relies on an “‘indisputably meritless legal theory’ or a ‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.’” Jd. The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough,

(3d Cir. 1999). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009); Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby,

, 12 (2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See

. A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume

their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp.,

(3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint “show” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Igbal,

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

IV. DISCUSSION Even employing the less stringent standard afforded to pro se litigants, see Erickson,

, the Complaint warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 § 1915(e)(2)(B)G). The Complaint attempts to assert § 1983 claims that are clearly baseless, rely on indisputably meritless legal theories, or arise from fantastical or delusional factual scenarios. Additionally, the claims asserted appear time-barred and at least one Defendant is immune from suit. As such, the Court concludes that this action is frivolous, and amendment is futile. Vv. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint (D.I. 2) pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(). An appropriate Order will be entered.