Emile J. Dominique, Iv v. United States Department of Defense

ALD-102 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-3087
___________
EMILE J. DOMINIQUE, IV,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-05752)
District Judge: Honorable John M. Younge
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 13, 2025
Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 21, 2025)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
The District Court dismissed Emile J. Dominique IV’s complaint as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We will summarily affirm.
Dominique’s complaint asserts various federal constitutional claims against the
United States Department of Defense (DOD) and seeks $40 trillion in compensatory and
punitive damages. The complaint alleges that the DOD engaged in targeted, continuous,
publicly broadcasted surveillance of Dominique, who claims to be the Messiah. The
District Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it
with prejudice as factually frivolous. This timely appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District Court’s
sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d
220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm if the appeal fails to present a
substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per
curiam); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of Dominique’s complaint as
frivolous. “To be frivolous, a claim must rely on an ‘indisputably meritless legal theory’
or a ‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.” Mitchell v. Horn, 318
F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28
(1989)); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). The complaint relies
on a clearly baseless or delusional factual scenario, alleging that the DOD placed
Dominique “on live TV[] that anyone could access” and allowed the public to watch
Dominique’s everyday activities, all in an effort “to ensure that [C]hristianity[] gets

-- 2 of 3 --

3
wiped out as a whole.” Complaint at 6. The District Court thus did not err in dismissing
these claims as frivolous.
Given the nature of Dominique’s filings in the District Court and in this Court, we
conclude that providing leave to amend the complaint would have been futile. See
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s
judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --