Opinion
2:19-CV-00171-CRE-CB
03-01-2019
LASHAWNNA AIKENS, Plaintiff, v. SECOND EAST HILLS LP, Defendant
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff Lashawnna Aikens's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (ECF No. 1) be granted and this case be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), as amendment would be futile.
II. REPORT
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 15, 2019 seeking to proceed IFP. Plaintiff is not a stranger to filing frivolous lawsuits in this court. Over the last three-plus years, Plaintiff has filed four other cases dismissed as frivolous. See Aikens v. Western Psychiatric Inst. and Clinic of UPMC, 2:16-cv-395 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2016) (dismissed with prejudice as frivolous per Order of 4/19/2016 (ECF No. 9)); Aikens v. University of Pittsburgh's School of Dental Medicine, 2:16-cv-443 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2016) (dismissed with prejudice as frivolous per Order of 4/19/2016 (ECF No. 5)); Aikens v. UPMC Shadyside Hospital, 2:16-cv-454 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2016) (dismissed with prejudice as frivolous per Order of 4/19/2016 (ECF No. 5)); Aikens v. DNA Diagnostic Center, 2:18-cv-700 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2018) (dismissed with prejudice as frivolous per Order of 9/18/18 (ECF No. 6)).
a. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
While 28 U.S.C. § 1915 authorizes litigants like Plaintiff to proceed IFP, such status is a privilege which may be denied when abused. After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case sua sponte if: (i) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (ii) the action is frivolous or malicious; (iii) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iv) the complaint seeks money damages from a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The screening procedures set forth in section 1915(e) apply to all IFP complaints, "not simply those filed by prisoners." Atamian v. Burns, 236 Fed. Appx. 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (citations omitted).
In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the pro se plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). In other words, the court must "accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint [or removal] and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).
In performing a court's mandated function of sua sponte reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to determine if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a federal district court applies the same standard as applied to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. See, e.g., Powell v. Hoover, 956 F. Supp. 565, 568 (M.D. Pa. 1997).
The court has reviewed Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP and finds that she has adequately showed that she is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the filing fee. Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1995) ("leave to proceed in forma pauperis is based on a showing of indigence."). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is granted and her complaint will be reviewed under the appropriate standard.
b. Plaintiff's claims
In this case, Plaintiff's substantive allegations are as follows: "I was unlawfully evicted and would like to receive my compensation thus I can move forwarded [sic]." See Pl.'s Statement of Claim (ECF No. 1-3 at 5). Additionally, she includes as exhibits to her complaint the Magisterial District Judge eviction docket. See East Hills I Limited Partnership v. Aikens, Magisterial District Judge 05-3-12 Docket Number: MJ-05311-LT-0000047-2016 (ECF No. 1-2). It is apparent from the docket that East Hills I Limited Partnership, the Defendant in this case, filed the eviction action on January 25, 2016, which was dismissed without prejudice on April 25, 2016 without possession being granted. Id. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2, 5).
Plaintiff does not specifically provide a basis for federal court jurisdiction in her complaint. (ECF No. 1-3 at 3-4). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and do not have jurisdiction over ordinary landlord-tenant disputes arising under state law. It is apparent that Plaintiff seeks damages only from her purported "unlawful eviction" which sounds solely in state law is not sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See e.g., Groves v. Wilson, 404 Fed. Appx. 705, 707 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished). Without more, these allegations do not confer jurisdiction upon this court and the complaint must be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), as amendment would be futile.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as amended would be futile.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and the Local Rules for Magistrates, and because Defendant is a non-electronically registered party, she has until March 20, 2019 to file objections to this report and recommendation. Failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011).
DATED this 1st day of March, 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Chief United States Magistrate Judge cc: Honorable Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
via electronic filing
LASHAWNNA AIKENS
2340 East Hills Drive
#13
Pittsburgh, PA 15221