USVI Public Records

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║ SAMMY DAVIS JR., ║ ║ 1:17-cv-00058 Plaintiff, ║ ║ v. ║ ║ KENNETH MAPP, FELECIA BLYDEN, ║ ESTER SWEENEY, ║ ║ Defendants. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Sammy Davis Jr., Pro Se ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 2) and for initial screening of Plaintiff's pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court finds that Plaintiff has properly demonstrated his inability to pay the required court costs. The application to proceed in forma pauperis, therefore, will be granted. However, for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). I. LEGAL STANDARD Where a plaintiff has obtained leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint for cognizable claims and sua sponte dismiss all or any part of an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or Case: 1:17-cv-00058-RAM-EAH Document #: 8 Filed: 01/17/18 Page 1 of 5 Davis v. Mapp 1:17-cv-00058 Order and Report and Recommendation seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 A complaint is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). "A complaint is 'malicious' when it contains allegations which the plaintiff knows to be false, it is part of a longstanding pattern of abusive and repetitious lawsuits, or it contains disrespectful or abusive language." Stefanowicz v. SunTrust Mortgage, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3592, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2017) (citing Trader v. R.S., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47324, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2011)). “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to a motion filed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Thompson v. Carver, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78144, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 23, 2017) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)). “A complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if it does not allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’" Cuffie v. Macy’s 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104371, at *5 (W.D. Pa. July 5, 2017) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). 1 . Even though “Section 1915 refers to ‘prisoners,’ federal courts apply Section 1915 to non-prisoner IFP applications.” Cuello v. District of New Jersery, Civil Action No. 06-2117 (MCA), 2016 WL 2349592 at *1 (D.N.J. May 2, 2016) (citations omitted). As the Cuello court notes, “The decision to grant or deny an IFP application is based solely on the economic eligibility of the litigant.” Id. Case: 1:17-cv-00058-RAM-EAH Document #: 8 Filed: 01/17/18 Page 2 of 5 Davis v. Mapp 1:17-cv-00058 Order and Report and Recommendation An action that seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief shall be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). A petitioner's pro se pleading is construed liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff Davis alleges that the Government of the Virgin Islands and the Department of Human Services have stolen or otherwise misappropriated money that belongs to him. He seeks monetary relief in the amount of $8,889.28 (the amount that Davis alleges has been illegally seized) and $20 million. Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 2. To recover, Davis asserts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action. But it is not possible to determine if he has a § 1983 claim because his pleading is insufficient. And that is the reason why his complaint should be dismissed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and a demand for the relief sought. On the Motion to Proceed form,2 Davis states that the Government of the Virgin Islands and the Department of Human Services illegally took away his savings, discouraged him of his hopes and dreams, and deprived him of his rights to ownership, travel, fair and speedy trial, pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, life, and liberty. In the areas on the 2 Form VI-AO 240-NP, Non-Prisoner Civil Action (Rev. Aug. 24, 2015). Case: 1:17-cv-00058-RAM-EAH Document #: 8 Filed: 01/17/18 Page 3 of 5 Davis v. Mapp 1:17-cv-00058 Order and Report and Recommendation form where he is asked to describe the events giving rise to his claim, the dates of those events, and how he was damaged or injured by the defendants, Davis has written “N/A.” (ECF No. 2) at 2-3. For cases to move forward, plaintiffs "must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013). "[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to 'show' such an entitlement with its facts." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009). Here, Davis presents no facts upon which any determination can be made. He makes no statement as to what happened. He does not explain when, where, or how the alleged harm took place. Further, he provides no facts that show a connection between the alleged harm and his named defendants. The form provides places for him to do this and he simply writes, “N/A.” (ECF No. 2) at 2-3. Construing a plaintiff’s pro se pleading liberally does not require the court to accept inferences unsupported by facts, give credit to bald assertions or legal conclusions, nor assume a plaintiff can prove facts not alleged. See California Pub. Employee Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004). See also Reichart v. Luzerne County Facility's Med. Dep't, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116572, at *7-8 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2016); Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997); Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983)). "[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Case: 1:17-cv-00058-RAM-EAH Document #: 8 Filed: 01/17/18 Page 4 of 5 Davis v. Mapp 1:17-cv-00058 Order and Report and Recommendation Gloria Sun Jung v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102247, at *7 (M.D. Pa Aug. 2, 2016) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The court has read Davis’s pleadings liberally. But the court cannot construct a claim from blank lines. Simply put, because there are no facts to support Davis’s allegations—that the Government and DHS stole his money—the court is unable to cognize a claim. III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, it is now hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees and Costs (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; and it is further RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to file objections within the specified time shall bar the aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned District Court Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LRCi 72.3. ENTER: Dated: January 17, 2018 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:17-cv-00058-RAM-EAH Document #: 8 Filed: 01/17/18 Page 5 of 5