FATA v. LEHIGH COUNTY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABRAHIM FATA, 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-CV-5019
:
LEHIGH COUNTY, et al., 	:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM
HENRY, J. 	OCTOBER 15, 2026
Abrahim Fata, a frequent pro se litigant in this Court who repeatedly raises claims
concerning an alleged multi-state conspiracy that was formed in 2017 to cover up sex crimes
against his minor children, filed this pro se civil action against numerous Defendants, asserting
that this case arises under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c); the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C.
§ 1595; and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986. (See ECF No. 5
(“Am. Compl.”) at 26-28.)1 Fata seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. His claims in the
instant case echo those raised in several previous civil actions and are based on the same series
of events. As in those other cases, Fata’s pleadings are predicated on his belief that a vast
conspiracy exists to cover up crimes of sexual abuse against his minor children and push him to
suicide. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Fata leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismiss his Amended Complaint with prejudice because it is frivolous.
1 Fata’s Amended Complaint is the governing pleading in this case. See Garrett v.
Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 82 (3d Cir. 2019) (explaining that “an amended pleading
supersedes the original pleading,” meaning “the most recently filed amended complaint becomes
the operative pleading”); see also Argentina v. Gillette, 778 F. App’x 173, 175 n.3 (3d Cir. 2019)
(per curiam) (“[L]iberal construction of a pro se amended complaint does not mean
accumulating allegations from superseded pleadings.”).
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 18

2
I. 	LITIGATION HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS2
Since 2024, Fata has filed nine civil actions in this Court prior to filing the instant case.3
In these cases, Fata has continually alleged the existence of a multi-state conspiracy formed in
2017 by a Christian religious based organization to cover up sex crimes inflicted on his minor
children and push him to suicide (hereinafter referred to as the “2017 conspiracy”). See
generally Civil Action Nos. 24-2402, 24-4862, 24-6934, 24-6935, 24-6936, 26-0828, 26-2185,
and 26-3661.4 Fata contends that the original members of the 2017 conspiracy have recruited
numerous individuals throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida, including his family
members, friends and acquaintances, private attorneys, state and federal law enforcement
agencies and their employees, and state and county employees. In each of these cases, Fata
2 The allegations set forth in this Memorandum are taken from Fata’s Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 5) and the publicly available dockets for prior civil actions filed by Fata, of
which this Court takes judicial notice. See Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260
(3d Cir. 2006) (courts may consider “matters of public record” in determining whether a
pleading has stated a claim); Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 848 F.2d 414,
416 n.3 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding that court may take judicial notice of the record from previous
court proceedings). The Court adopts the sequential pagination assigned by the CM/ECF
docketing system. Where the Court quotes from pro se pleadings, punctuation, spelling, and
capitalization errors will be cleaned up as needed.
Fata also filed more than 260 pages of exhibits. (ECF No. 6). With regard to the
exhibits, “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.” Doebler’s Pa.
Hybrids, Inc. v. Doebler, 442 F.3d 812, 820 n.8 (3d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “While a court may consider exhibits attached to a complaint, merely
attaching exhibits is insufficient to meet the requirement that a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Berkery v.
Credit Collection Servs., No. 21-3809, 2021 WL 4060454, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2021).
3 Fata has also filed several cases in the District of New Jersey.
4 Because Fata has a long history of filing frivolous pleadings in this Court, the
undersigned entered an Order on August 24, 2026 in Fata v. Lang, No. 26-3661 (see ECF No.
15), directing Fata to show cause as to why a filing injunction should not be entered. Fata has
recently filed a response to that Order, and the Court will address that issue by a separate
memorandum and order in due course.
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 18

3
asserted claims against various individuals, many of whom are named as Defendants in the
current Complaint, alleging that their involvement with the 2017 conspiracy resulted in a
violation of his civil rights or otherwise caused him harm.
Thus far, none of Fata’s cases have proceeded past statutory screening. See Fata v. Ortiz,
No. 24-2402, ECF Nos. 14 & 15 (dismissing conspiracy claims as factually frivolous), aff’d No.
24-3033 (3d Cir.); Fata v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 24-4861, ECF Nos. 33 & 34
(dismissing civil rights claims challenging probation violation conviction and sentence as barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)),
aff’d No. 25-1889 (3d Cir.); Fata v. Amantine, No. 24-4862, ECF Nos. 26 & 27 (dismissing
conspiracy claims as factually frivolous, constitutional claims with prejudice for failure to state a
claim, and state law claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), aff’d No.
25-2077 (3d Cir.); Fata v. Lang, No. 24-6934, ECF Nos. 7 & 8 (dismissing conspiracy claims as
factually frivolous, constitutional claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and state law
claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), aff’d No. 25-1886 (3d Cir.);
Fata v. Delgado, No. 24-6935, ECF Nos. 7 & 8 (dismissing conspiracy claims as factually
frivolous, constitutional claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and state law claims
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), aff’d No. 25-1888 (3d Cir.); Fata v.
Ortiz, No. 24-6936, ECF Nos. 7 & 8 (dismissing conspiracy claims as factually frivolous,
constitutional claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and state law claims without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), aff’d No. 25-1887 (3d Cir.); Fata v. Young, No.
26-0828, ECF Nos. 8 & 9 (dismissing conspiracy claims as both factually frivolous and for
failure to state a claim, and dismissing RICO and Right to Know Law claims for lack of
jurisdiction), notice of appeal filed July 12, 2026 (ECF No. 13); Fata v. Arcelly, No. 26-2185,
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 18

4
ECF Nos. 8 & 9 (dismissing conspiracy and RICO claims as factually and legally frivolous, and
dismissing due process claims for failure to state a claim), notice of appeal filed July 1, 2026
(ECF No. 11); Fata v. Lang, No. 26-3661, ECF Nos. 13 & 14 (dismissing complaint as
frivolous), notice of appeal filed September 29, 2026 (ECF No. 17).
In Fata’s most recent case, Civil Action No. 26-3661, it was evident that Fata believes
nearly everyone he knows or meets is either an active participant in the 2017 conspiracy or has
been influenced by it because his pleadings were fraught with numerous references to alleged
conspiratorial activity and his beliefs that numerous individuals from Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
and Florida were plotting against him or trying to prevent him from seeking “justice” for his
children. (See, e.g., Compl. (No. 26-3661, ECF No. 2) ¶ 31 (“At this time I already knew there
was a conspiracy against me. . . . Everything made sense, the fights, the fatal accidents, the
unemployment, the coincidents [sic]- everything. Nothing was a natural cause, NOTHING.”); ¶
72 (referencing family members who “have been in on the conspiracy” concerning his children,
asserting that they “help create an illusion/gaslight that [he] is imagining things, or that [he’s]
crazy, and the one who is hurting [his] own children”); ¶¶ 74, 81(b) (averring that “society is
trying to get [him] to commit suicide”); ¶¶ 75, 77 (explaining that there “was a conspiracy to
cover” up abuse “by getting [him] arrested and to the extreme of trying to murder [him]”); ¶ 79
(alleging that the conspiracy “escalated to trying to get [him] killed. Judges, and many
governments are involved”).) Fata asserted several claims based on the 2017 conspiracy,
including a civil RICO claim, a claim pursuant to the TVPRA, and conspiracy claims in violation
of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. (Id. at 48-50.)
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 18

5
In the instant case, Fata continues to assert the existence of the 2017 conspiracy, and this
time he names nearly forty individuals as Defendants,5 explaining in a twenty-three page, single-
spaced narrative that he was “wrongfully incarcerated for 23 months”6 at Lehigh County Jail and
during that time there was “an attempt [of] voluntary manslaughter” against him and several
individuals were “aiding suicide, or attempting to push [him] to suicide” and “get [him]
wrongfully medicated . . . [and] keep [him] wrongfully imprisoned.” (Am. Compl. at 3.) He
claims that the “overall agenda was to continuously conspire to cover up sex crimes on [his]
children and to manipulate [his] death.” (Id.)
Fata’s Amended Complaint is lengthy, confused, and reflects his continuing beliefs that
others are trying to harm his children or are conspiring against him to provoke him “to commit
suicide in order to cover up the sex crime on [his] son.” See, e.g., Am. Compl. at 5. It focuses
solely on Fata’s version of events from September 2022 through September 2025 as he attempted
to pursue “justice” for his minor children. As with his most recent case, it is evident from his
5 The named Defendants are: Lehigh County, Kyle A. Russell, Cliff Knappenberger,
Edwin Arcelly, Robert “Bob” Krasley, Douglas Matte, Latifah Pittman, PrimeCare Medical, Inc.,
Chris Miller, Sergeant Cardone, C.O. Nieves, C.O. Charles, C.O. Roberts, Aracelly Delgado,
Chris Delgado, Abigail Sheehan, Pamela Perez, Garrett Hall, Kelsey Krempesky, Jason Willis,
Jill Herschman, Jason Kremus, Trina, C.O. Whittington, Ryan Arthur, Jacquline Mathews,
Mayra Alamo, Crystal Salmond, and John/Jane Does 1-10 (Unknown Co-Conspirators). (Am.
Compl. at 2-3.)
6 Fata avers that he was on probation in Lehigh County and, while he was “pursuing
justice” for his son, there was an “attempted voluntary manslaughter and [he] was also trafficked
to lose custody of [his] daughter” and because his daughter was “sexually and morally
corrupted” by her grandmother, he “pursued justice” in New Jersey. (Am. Compl. at 3-4.) Fata
avers that “New Jersey Bayonne Police” attacked him on September 23, 2023, to “prevent
justice” and he was charged with aggravated assault of an officer. (Id. at 4.) Public dockets
reflect that Fata was incarcerated at LCJ in connection with probation revocation proceedings.
See Commonwealth v. Fata, No. CP-39-CR-0004857-2017 (C.P. Lehigh). On January 16, 2024,
Fata’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to nine to twenty-three months
imprisonment. Id. During the probation revocation proceedings, Fata was represented by
Attorney Robert Sletvold. Id.
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 18

6
allegations that Fata believes nearly everyone he knows or meets is either an active participant in
the 2017 conspiracy or has been influenced by it because the Amended Complaint is fraught with
numerous references to alleged conspiratorial activity and his beliefs that numerous individuals
from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, including, inter alia, police officers, prison staff, and
inmates, are plotting against him or trying to prevent him from seeking “justice” for his children.
(See, e.g., Am. Compl., “Statement of the Claim” at ¶ 3(d) (“There was a conspiracy to get me to
commit suicide in order to cover up the sex crime on my son . . . [and] my relatives were in on it
because they covered up the sex crime on my son, and wanted to keep it covered up.”); ¶ 13(a)(i)
(“Then there was the attempts to emotionally hurt me which goes to the conspiracy to push me to
suicide. The suicide conspiracy is being seen in every case filed in the federal jurisdiction, and
states of PA and NJ.”); ¶ 14(a)(ii) (“[T]he mothers of my 2 children Abigail Sheehan and Pamela
Perez ha[ve] contribute[d] to the upcoming psychological and emotional attack, or keep my mind
in a crisis state of being, which was part of the ongoing conspiracy to push me to suicide.”); ¶
17(a) (alleging that when a correctional officer told Fata that another inmate heard him talking to
himself, Fata realized that “[t]his was the first issue [he] had with the jail inmates concerning the
conspiracy.”); ¶ 21(a) (“I instantly felt like it was a death threat because the covid records were
mutlized [sic] and under another inmate’s name as well.”); ¶ 21(c) (“I knew for a fact they were
trying to convince me to commit suicide. (The suicide conspiracy started in 2019 and followed
me still here in the jail.”); ¶ 23(a) (Fata explained during his mental health interview that “[his]
rights are severely violated, and that there is a psychological attack against [him] to the extreme
of getting death threats.”); ¶¶ 24, 24(d) (On September 27, 2024, Fata received a “random call to
go work in the kitchen . . . [where] there are knives. . .. So to prevent the conspiracy, [he]
denied” the work and then later told a correctional officer that “she is trying to kill me, they are
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6 of 18

7
trying to kill me.”); ¶ 29(a) (Fata wrote “a secret letter to the nurse” to tell her that he was
receiving threats, directing her “to inform someone outside . . . because C.O.s are in on it.”); ¶
29(d) (“You can easily tell who is targeting me from all the grievances.”); ¶ 30(a) (“This proves
the hidden agenda to push me to suicide is real.”); ¶ 34 (“My case is really about defending
myself from police oppression, and they are doing the oppression to cover up the sex crime that
happened to my children.”); ¶ 37 (Fata had a medical appointment prior to his release with a
nurse and “believe[d] she was the one who injected [him] with covid back in 2020.”); ¶ 39
(“Other C.O.s . . . played with my mail, wrongfully gave me 24’s/lockdowns etc. contributing to
the oppression.”)).
Fata alleges claims of First Amendment retaliation and access to the courts, averring that
“Defendants and their unknown co-conspirators took adverse, retaliatory actions to punish” him
and block court access. (Am. Compl. at 26.) He explicitly claims that Sergeant Cardone
“executed” a “retaliatory campaign by bypassing standard institutional work-assignment policies
to force an irregular kitchen assignment.” (Id.) This is the kitchen work assignment that Fata
refused to accept on September 27, 2024, because he wanted “to prevent the conspiracy,” noting
that “there [were] knives” in the kitchen. (Id. at 14, ¶ 24.) When Fata told Cardone about the
conspiracy and death threats against him, she “decided to take him to “3C the Hole.” (Id.) Fata
avers that Cardone’s retaliatory campaign “was further advanced by outside Defendants . . . who
coordinated with internal actors to manipulate [his] psychological state.” (Id. at 26.)
Fata alleges a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), asserting that
“Defendants and their unknown co-conspirators entered into an explicit, coordinated agreement
to deprive [him] of his fundamental liberties, equal protection under the law, and due process
rights.” (Id. at 27.) He claims, inter alia, that the “conspiracy manifested through pre-arrest
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 7 of 18

8
tracking, the immediate imposition of a fraudulent suicide watch profile, the systematic
tampering and shading of approved medical files, the deliberate matching of internal inmate
dockets . . . to serve as threats, bad-faith flight-risk designations, and coordinated child
alienation.” (Id.) He avers that Cardone and C.O. Charles “attempted to engineer hostile cell
placements to compromise [his] safety and silence his ongoing administrative grievances.” (Id.)
Fata contends that Cardone removed him from general population to place him “into the un-
witnessed physical trap engineered by Defendant Charles within cell 3C.” (Id.) He alleges that
the physical trap awaiting him in 3C consisted of “2 pencils” and Charles’s attempt to place
another inmate in the same cell as Fata so they would fight. (Id. at 14-15, ¶¶ 24(a), 24(d)(i) “The
point is the jail knows that fights are definitely brutal and leaving 2 pencils in the cell for a fight
is instigating a murder.”)
As in his prior cases before this Court, Fata asserts a civil RICO claim, claiming that
Defendants “operated an association-in-fact institutional ‘enterprise’ engaged in a pattern of
racketeering across state lines, utilizing mail fraud, identity manipulation, and systematic
oppression to exploit and hold [him] captive.” (Id. at 27.) He claims that he suffered injury
when caseworkers Arcelly and Krasley “blocked his access” to bank accounts, “forcing his
prolonged imprisonment past his minimum release dates.”7 (Id.) He also asserts a claim
7 A similar claim was addressed by the Court in its June 25, 2026 Memorandum in Fata
v. Arcelly, No. 26-2185, ECF No. 8. Specifically, Fata alleged that his due process rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment were violated because these Defendants and others somehow caused
him to remain improperly in custody rather than released on early parole at some point prior to
the end of his maximum custodial sentence. (Id. at 20-22.) The Court concluded that because
Fata had no constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole or any parole procedures, any due
process violation based on Defendants’ actions that allegedly led to his loss of parole failed. (Id.
at 22.) (citing Newman v. Beard, No. 06-214, 2008 WL 2149605, at *2 (W.D. Pa. May 21, 2008)
(claim for violation of due process based on deficient parole procedures in interview conducted
by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole fails because there is no liberty interest in
parole or any of its procedures); Nellom v. Luber, No. 02-2190, 2004 WL 816922, at *10 (E.D.
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 8 of 18

9
pursuant to the TVPRA, averring that Defendants “engaged in human trafficking and coercion by
using extreme institutional force” that allegedly included “punitive isolation in cell 3C,”
“weaponized cell placements with hostile inmates,” financial extortion and deactivation of
communication devices. (Id. at 28.) He also alleges “food deprivation . . . to maintain unlawful
physical control over [his] body,” a “bait-and-switch bail collapse,” and the coordination of a
“cross-household blockade of all communication [with] his minor children, weaponizing parental
alienation as an extreme psychological leverage tool to maintain absolute institutional control
over [his] physical and mental state.” (Id.) Finally, Fata alleges a conspiracy claim in violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 against at least ten unknown defendants, consisting of “turnkeys,
administrative clerks, medical personnel, and correctional staff at Lehigh County Jail,” asserting
that they “had actual or constructive knowledge of the ongoing 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy”
to violate his rights. (Id. at 28.) Fata seeks monetary damages, “criminal investigation and
prosecution,”8 and “a permanent injunction against the Defendants to cease all psychological and
Pa. Mar. 18, 2004) (due process claim based on parole procedures fails because there is no
constitutionally protected liberty interest in either being granted parole or having a parole
hearing).
8 As Fata has been told on numerous prior occasions, he cannot compel a criminal
investigation by filing a complaint with this Court. See Civ. A. Nos. 24-4862 (ECF No. 26 at 1,
n.1); 24-6934 (ECF No. 7 at 1, n.1); 24-6935 (ECF No. 7 at 4-5, n.6); 24-6936 (ECF No. 7 at 4,
n.6); 26-2185 (ECF No. 8 at 17-18); 26-3661 (ECF No. 12 at 7-8, n.3). “A private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” See Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (finding that a citizen lacks standing to contest
prosecutorial policies “when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.”)
(citations omitted). Fata cannot compel a criminal investigation by filing a complaint with this
Court because the United States District Courts have no authority to order any law enforcement
agencies or prosecutors to initiate investigations or prosecutions. See Wagner v. United States
Gov’t, No. 23-1626, 2023 WL 3948820, at *1 (D.D.C. June 9, 2023) (citing Otero v. U.S.
Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141, 141-42 (11th Cir. 1987); Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643
(7th Cir. 1982)). “[A]n agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or
criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” Wagner,
2023 WL 3948820, at *1 (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985)); see also Smith
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 9 of 18

10
systematic oppression.” (Id. at 28-29.)
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will grant Fata leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is
incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to screen and dismiss the Complaint if it is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
requires the Court to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires
dismissal if a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A complaint is
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Brown v. City of Philadelphia,
750 F. App’x 171, 173 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (quoting 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.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 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[,]” including claims that
describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios[.]” Id. at 327; see also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d
523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts
alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are
judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Smith v. N. Cambria Police, No. 25-
1273, 2025 WL 1324070, at *1 (3d Cir. May 7, 2025) (per curiam) (quoting Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)). A claim is legally baseless if it is “based on an indisputably
v. Friel, No. 19-943, 2019 WL 3025239, at *4 (M.D. Pa. June 4, 2019), report and
recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3003380 (M.D. Pa. July 10, 2019) (collecting cases and
stating “courts have long held that a civil rights plaintiff may not seek relief in civil litigation in
the form of an order directing the criminal prosecution of some third parties”).
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 10 of 18

11
meritless legal theory.” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding
frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took an inmate’s pen and refused to give it back).
Whether the complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the
same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
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)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 560 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). At the screening stage, 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 the complaint contains facts sufficient to state a
plausible claim. Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021), abrogation on other
grounds recognized by Fisher v. Hollingsworth, 115 F.4th 197, 204 (3d Cir. 2024). In assessing
the Complaint, the Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s
pleadings. See Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Fata’s Complaint Will Be Dismissed
Fata’s Complaint is frivolous. As repeatedly explained to Fata in his prior civil actions,
his allegations that a multistate conspiracy has been formed to push him to suicide, frame him for
crimes he did not commit, and cover up the sexual exploitation of his minor children, are wholly
incredible and lack a basis in fact.9 Accordingly, the Court will dismiss his Complaint as
9 Fata also asserts a civil RICO claim based on the 2017 conspiracy. (Am. Compl. at 27.)
In addition to being factually frivolous, Fata’s RICO claims are legally baseless. RICO “makes
it unlawful ‘for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the
activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.’”
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 11 of 18

12
factually baseless, without leave to amend. See, e.g., Caterbone v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 698 F.
App’x 678, 679 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal as lacking an arguable basis in
fact where underlying allegations were based on plaintiff’s assertion that he was a “victim of
U.S. sponsored mind control and cointelpro harassment program”); Mina v. Chester County, 679
F. App’x 192, 195 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims that 62
defendants had a vast conspiracy against him spanning twenty years); Price v. Fed. Bureau of
Investigation, No. 20-3015, 2020 WL 4368063, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2020), aff’d, 845 F.
App’x 106 (3d Cir. 2021) (finding plaintiff’s allegations to be factually frivolous where plaintiff
asserted that “numerous law enforcement agencies, attorneys, prison officials, and medical
professionals have used neurological and psychological technology to control the ‘four basic
In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 362 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. §
1962(c)). To state a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege the following elements:
“(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Id. (internal
quotations omitted). “‘Racketeering activity’ is defined in the RICO statute to comprise the state
law offenses of murder, kidnaping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in
obscene matter, and dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical, as well as several
federal offenses such as mail and wire fraud.” Talley v. Halpern ex rel. Est. of Winderman, No.
05-4184, 2005 WL 2002611, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2005) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)).
“According to the RICO statute, a ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ requires at least two acts of
racketeering activity within a ten-year period.” In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d at
363 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5)). Additionally, a plaintiff must have sustained “injury to
business or property” caused by the alleged RICO violation to bring a RICO claim. Maio v.
Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 482–83 (3d Cir. 2000). Fata does not allege any conduct that could be
considered racketeering activity for purposes of setting forth a legal basis for a RICO claim. See
Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1999) (“The claim that the defendants [including
numerous judges, staff attorneys, and an assistant united states attorney] engaged in a RICO
conspiracy by failing to properly address issues on appeal and ‘bribing’ witnesses to testify
pursuant to plea agreements lacks any arguable basis in law and was properly dismissed as
frivolous.”); Mierzwa v. Safe & Secure Self Storage, LLC, 493 F. App’x 273, 276 (3d Cir. 2012)
(“[C]onclusory allegations that defendants conspired for the purpose of defrauding [Mierzwa]
are simply inadequate to plead a valid RICO claim.” (footnote omitted)). Fata’s conclusory
allegations that approximately forty individuals in at least two different states, many of whom
are employed for different counties or private entities, conspired with an unidentified “Christian
religious-based organization” for the purpose of suppressing evidence of child exploitation are
inadequate to plead a valid RICO claim, or any other conspiracy claim.
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 12 of 18

13
groups of his brain and mental functions’ and “that the use of this ‘technology’ and ‘mind
control’ has caused him numerous impairments and drove him to criminal and erratic behavior”);
Jorge v. Torres, No. 18-14674, 2019 WL 2385942, at *3 (D.N.J. June 6, 2019) (“Plaintiff’s
factual allegations that the Police are monitoring his every move and that the Police do so by
telephone recruitment ‘of informants, spies, and willing constituates [sic]’ is exactly the type of
‘fantastic or delusional scenario[ ]’ warranting dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).”
(alterations in original)).
There are additional reasons, however, as to why Fata’s Amended Complaint cannot
proceed. Fata asserts a claim under the TVPRA, specifically referencing 18 U.S.C. § 1595.
(Am. Compl. at 27-28.) Fata’s claim is not plausible. Although 18 U.S.C. § 1595 provides for a
civil remedy for violations of the TVPRA, Fata fails to allege any facts suggesting that
Defendants either forced him into labor, trafficked him for forced labor, or benefitted financially
from peonage or forced labor.10 See Brown v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for E. Dist. of Pa., No. 18-1108,
2018 WL 11463543, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2018), aff’d sub nom., Brown v. City of Phila. Off.
of Hum. Res., 735 F. App’x 55 (3d Cir. 2018).
As in prior cases, Fata asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. (Am. Compl. at
27, 28.) Because he avers that Defendants conspired with the intent to deny him “equal
protection of the laws,” he appears to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). (Id. at 27.) This
section creates a cause of action against any two persons who “conspire . . . for the purpose of
10 As a convicted inmate who was previously in custody for a parole violation, Fata also
has no constitutional claim arising from forced labor while he was incarcerated. See Dmytryszyn
v. Hickenlooper, 527 F. App’x 757, 760 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that in the context of a
convicted prisoner, the courts have held that prisoners have no Thirteenth Amendment or liberty
or property interest in payment for their work and may be lawfully compelled to work)
(nonprecedential).
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 13 of 18

14
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of
the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). To
state a plausible claim under § 1985(3) a plaintiff must allege the following elements: (1) a
conspiracy; (2) motivated by a racial or class based discriminatory animus designed to deprive,
directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws; (3) an act
in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) an injury to a person or property or the deprivation of
any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. Lake v. Arnold, 112 F.3d 682, 685 (3d
Cir. 1997). Significantly, the “language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal
privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-
based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” United Bhd. of
Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 610, AFL-CIO v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 835 (1983) (quoting
Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); see also Farber v. City of Paterson, 440 F.3d
131, 136 (3d Cir. 2006) (explaining that Ҥ 1985(3) defendants must have allegedly conspired
against a group that has an identifiable existence independent of the fact that its members are
victims of the defendants’ tortious conduct”); Hauptmann v. Wilentz, 570 F. Supp. 351, 386
(D.N.J. 1983) (“If the conspiracy only affects the plaintiff individually, the allegations will not
satisfy the class-based animus requirement.”), aff’d sub nom., Appeal of Hauptmann, 770 F.2d
1070 (3d Cir. 1985).
Moreover, a plaintiff must allege specific facts to state a plausible § 1985(3) claim.
Robinson v. McCorkle, 462 F.2d 111, 113 (3d Cir. 1972) (“With near unanimity, the courts have
rejected complaints containing mere conclusory allegations of deprivations of constitutional
rights protected under § 1985(3). A conspiracy claim based upon § 1985(3) requires a clear
showing of invidious, purposeful and intentional discrimination between classes or
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 14 of 18

15
individuals.”); Grigsby v. Kane, 250 F. Supp. 2d 453, 458 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (“[O]nly allegations
which are particularized, such as those addressing the period of the conspiracy, the object of the
conspiracy, and actions taken in furtherance of the conspiracy, will be deemed sufficient.”).
“[T]o properly plead an unconstitutional conspiracy, a plaintiff must assert facts from which a
conspiratorial agreement can be inferred.” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild
LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 178 (3d Cir. 2010). “[A] bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
These claims fail for several reasons. First, there is no allegation that a conspiracy was
motivated by race or a class-based discriminatory animus as required by § 1985(3). Fata does
not identify his race, nor does he make any allegation that race was the motivation behind the
Defendants’ alleged actions. Although Fata has previously emphasized his status as a pro se
litigant, pro se status is not a protected class for purposes of stating a § 1985 claim. See Finch v.
Buechel, No. 04-1856, 2005 WL 2807127, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2005) (“Regardless of which
of these two subsections of § 1985 that she seeks to invoke, Finch cannot prevail on her claim
because she only asserts “class-based invidious discrimination” as a pro se litigant.”), aff’d, 188
F. App’x 139 (3d Cir. 2006); Brik v. Brodie, No. 23-4330, 2024 WL 1604194, at *6 (E.D.N.Y.
Apr. 12, 2024) (collecting cases and stating that pro se status is not an “‘immutable’ quality
beyond the class members’ control”). Also, Fata asserts the existence of a conspiracy only in
conclusory terms and provides no facts from which a conspiratorial agreement may be inferred.
Groce v. City of Phila. L. Dep’t, No. 21-5132, 2022 WL 493418, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2022)
(dismissing conspiracy claim as wholly conclusory where the plaintiff failed to alleged facts
regarding the formation of a conspiracy between any Defendants or any other individuals, the
period of the conspiracy, or actions taken by the alleged conspirators to achieve the alleged
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 15 of 18

16
purpose thereof). Fata’s § 1985 claim is not plausible. The § 1986 claim also fails because §
1986 does not create an independent cause of action. Black v. Bayer, 672 F.2d 309, 312-13 n. 4
(3d Cir. 1982). Rather, § 1986 claims are derived from § 1985 claims, so that “plaintiff’s § 1986
claim would fail with his § 1985 claim,” if he has not stated a claim under Section 1985. Id.
Finally, Fata avers that Defendants “block[ed] court access.” (Am. Compl. at 26.) This
claim is not plausible. “Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, prisoners retain a right of
access to the courts.” Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996)). “Where prisoners assert that defendants’ actions have inhibited their
opportunity to present a past legal claim, they must show (1) that they suffered an ‘actual injury’
-- that they lost a chance to pursue a ‘nonfrivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim; and (2) that
they have no other ‘remedy that may be awarded as recompense’ for the lost claim other than in
the present denial of access suit.” Id. (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415
(2002)). “The complaint must describe the underlying arguable claim well enough to show that
it is ‘more than mere hope,’ and it must describe the ‘lost remedy.’” Id. at 205-06 (footnote
omitted and quoting Christopher, 536 U.S. at 416-17).
When reviewing a complaint to determine whether a plaintiff has alleged a plausible
claim, a court must “disregard threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, legal
conclusions, and conclusory statements.” Oakwood Lab’ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 904
(3d Cir. 2021) (quoting James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 681 (3d Cir. 2012)). Fata
does not allege that he suffered an actual injury, nor does he allege what underlying nonfrivolous
claims he was unable to pursue as a result of any Defendant’s actions. See, e.g., Monroe, 536
F.3d at 206 (finding that plaintiffs’ allegations that “they lost the opportunity to pursue attacks of
their convictions and civil rights claims” without “specify[ing] facts demonstrating that the
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 16 of 18

17
claims were nonfrivolous” did not state a claim); see also Walters v. Harry, No. 25-3579, 2026
WL 1298057, at *1 (3d Cir. May 12, 2026) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of access-to-courts
claim where plaintiff failed to describe his underlying claim well enough to establish that it was
“more than hope”); Williams v. Sorber, No. 24-2046, 2025 WL 1419716, at *4 (3d Cir. May 16,
2025) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of First Amendment access-to-the-courts claim where
plaintiff failed to “explain how access to the law library would have assisted in the preparation of
his request to file a petition for allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc, nor did he identify why the
underlying challenge to his sentence would have been successful” (citing Monroe, 536 F.3d at
205-06)); Presbury v. Wetzel, 789 F. App’x 294, 295 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (affirming the
dismissal of access to courts claim based on loss of plaintiff’s legal property where plaintiff “did
not allege any facts about the merits of his underlying claim” and did not “demonstrate that the
loss of his legal materials, while unfortunate and inconvenient, has rendered him unable to seek
the District Attorney’s review”); Talley v. Varner, 786 F. App’x 326, 328 (3d Cir. 2019) (per
curiam) (affirming dismissal of access-to-the-courts claim where inmate, inter alia, failed to
allege what underlying nonfrivolous claims he was unable to pursue).
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 17 of 18

18
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Fata leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismiss his Amended Complaint as frivolous. Leave to amend will not be given as any
attempt to amend would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112-113
(3d Cir. 2002) (“[D]ismissals of frivolous claims do not require leave to amend due to the long
tradition of denying leave to amend . . . when amendment is inequitable or futile.”). An
appropriate order follows, dismissing this case in a final order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).
Case 5:26-cv-05019-CH Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 18 of 18