Celestine G. Thompson v. Annette Newsome, 688 F. App'x 876

Plaintiff Celestine Thompson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint invoking 18 U.S.C. § 115 (criminal statute protecting federal officials) claiming entitlement to relief.
The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.
Thompson appealed the dismissal to the federal appellate panel.
The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo under the Rule 12(b)(6) / § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) standard, accepting well-pleaded facts as true and applying Iqbal plausibility review.
The court concluded Thompson was not within the protected class under § 115 and that § 115 does not create a private civil cause of action.
The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thompson stated a plausible claim under 18 U.S.C. § 115	Thompson argued her allegations invoked § 115 and warranted relief	District court argued § 115 applies only to protected federal officials/their immediate family and does not create civil remedies	Affirmed dismissal: Thompson not in protected class and statute provides no private civil cause of action
Whether dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) was proper	Thompson contended dismissal was erroneous because her complaint stated a claim	District court maintained sua sponte dismissal is required if complaint fails to state a claim	Affirmed: de novo review, complaint fails Rule 12(b)(6)/Iqbal plausibility test

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading plausibility)
Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 1990) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (standards for reviewing § 1915 dismissals apply de novo)
Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043 (accept well-pleaded facts as true on Rule 12(b)(6) review)