Emile J. Dominique, Iv v. Watchtower Bible

CLD-071 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-3089
___________
EMILE J. DOMINIQUE, IV,
Appellant
v.
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY (Jehovah’s Witnesses); DONALD
TRUMP; MIKE JOHNSON; RING; COMCAST; THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY;
INSTAGRAM LLC
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Action No. 2:24-cv-05626)
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
January 23, 2025
Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 27, 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 4 --

2
Emile Dominique IV appeals pro se from the District Court’s October 31, 2024
dismissal order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We will summarily affirm.
Dominique’s complaint asserts various federal and state law claims against
defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, President Donald Trump, Speaker of the
House of Representatives Mike Johnson, Ring LLC, Comcast, the Walt Disney
Company, and Instagram LLC. Those claims, and the factual bases provided, are difficult
to follow, but generally revolve around alleged campaigns of harassment and defamation
by each defendant. Dominique asserted that the District Court possessed diversity
jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The District Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and
dismissed the federal claims with prejudice as factually frivolous. It also dismissed the
state law claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction and concluding that Dominique had not sufficiently
pleaded diversity jurisdiction. 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.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of Dominique’s federal claims 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 claims are based
on allegations that the defendants have all, in various ways, engaged in campaigns of
harassment and defamation against Dominique. For example, the complaint alleges that
Comcast “targeted [Dominique] massively in commercials, movies, books, podcast, and
all other media” in an effort to “persuade others to believe that [Dominique is] ‘Satan.’”
Complaint at 15. The District Court did not err in dismissing these claims as frivolous.
With respect to claims that Dominique sought to bring under state law, the District
Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677,
2025 WL 96212, at *5 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d
172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999). And because Dominique failed to plead complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties, no independent basis for jurisdiction over the state law
claims existed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC,
800 F.3d 99, 106 (3d Cir. 2015) (explaining that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

-- 3 of 4 --

4
8(a)(1), plaintiffs are required to plead the basis for federal jurisdiction).1 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.
1 The complaint avers that Dominique is a citizen of Georgia, and for each corporate
defendant, lists the state in which they are incorporated and the state(s) in which they
“currently operate.” Complaint at 8 & 9. It does not list where any of the corporations
have their principal place of business, nor does it identify the citizenship of any of the
members of the LLC defendants. See Lincoln Benefit, 800 F.3d at 104-05. It also does
not allege that the defendants are “not . . . citizen[s] of [Dominique]’s state of
citizenship.” Id. at 107.

-- 4 of 4 --