## Facts

- Daniel J. Goodson III, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Kim Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, and Khloe Kardashian-Odom (the Kardashians).
- Goodson alleged that the Kardashians’ “antics” on their reality-television programs caused him severe emotional and psychological strain.
- He asserted a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
- Goodson sought compensatory and punitive damages and requested a personalized apology stating: “D.J., we are sorry for emotionally stressing you out we love you!”
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissal at the screening stage under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- The district court adopted the recommendation (with a minor modification), concluded amendment would be futile, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- Goodson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

## Issues

1. Did Goodson state a viable § 1983 claim where the alleged wrongdoers were private television personalities and the complaint did not allege action attributable to the state?
2. Did the alleged reality-television conduct plausibly qualify as “outrageous” conduct sufficient to state an IIED claim under Pennsylvania law?
3. Did Goodson’s allegations fall within any limited category in which Pennsylvania recognizes an NIED claim?
4. Was dismissal with prejudice proper because amendment would be futile?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit dismissed the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), leaving the district court’s dismissal with prejudice in place.
- The court held that the § 1983 claim failed because Goodson did not allege state action; he complained only about the behavior of private television personalities.
- The court agreed that the IIED claim failed because the alleged conduct did not meet Pennsylvania’s demanding “outrageousness” requirement.
- The court agreed that the NIED claim failed because Goodson’s allegations did not fit within Pennsylvania’s recognized, narrowly defined NIED scenarios.
- The court accepted that amendment would not cure the defects and therefore would be futile.

## Legal Principles

- To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a deprivation of a federal right caused by conduct fairly attributable to the state; private conduct, without more, is not actionable.
- Under Pennsylvania law, IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct—conduct “atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community”; liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.
- Pennsylvania recognizes NIED only in limited circumstances (commonly involving physical impact or danger, witnessing injury to a close relative, or a special duty creating an obligation to avoid causing emotional harm); distress from televised behavior does not fall within those categories.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), courts must dismiss in forma pauperis complaints or appeals that are frivolous or fail to state a claim, including when amendment would be futile.

## Conclusion

In *Goodson v. Kardashian*, the Third Circuit dismissed the prisoner-plaintiff’s appeal under § 1915(e)(2) because his § 1983 claim lacked any allegation of state action and his Pennsylvania IIED and NIED claims could not be based on alleged emotional strain from private reality-television conduct; given these legal barriers, amendment was futile and the district court’s dismissal with prejudice stood.


Goodson v. Kardashian, 413 Fed. Appx. 417 (2011)