Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-3689 (NHP).
December 21, 1999.
Robert D. Burton, Esq., Elizabeth, N.J., Attorney for Plaintiff.
James R. Campbell, Esq., LAMBOS JUNGE, Bayonne, N.J., Attorneys for Defendants, New York Shipping Association, Inc.
James A. Capo, James P. Melia, Richard P. Lerner, Esq., And Co-Counsel to the NYSA-ILA Contract Board and local counsel to all remaining defendants.
Rania V. Sedhom, Esq., GLEASON MATHEWS, P.C., New York, NY., Attorneys for Defendants, International Longshoremen's Association AFL-CIO-ILA, Local 1233 ILA, Local 1235, John Bowers, Albert Cernadas, Sam DuPree, Andre Mazzola, Esq., And Co-Counsel to the NYSA-ILA Contract Board.
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS LETTER OPINION IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Dear Counsel:
This matter comes before the Court on the motion by defendants New York Shipping Association, Inc. (hereinafter "NYSA"), the International Longshoremen's Association (hereinafter "ILA") AFL-CIO, the NYSA-ILA Contract Board, ILA Local 1235, ILA Local 1233, James A. Capo, James P. Melia, Richard P. Lerner, Esq., John Bowers, Albert Cernadas, Sam DuPree, and Andre Mazzola, Esq. to dismiss the Complaint of plaintiff Robert D. Burton. This matter was decided without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated herein, said motion is GRANTED and plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, this case is CLOSED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Robert D. Burton (hereinafter "plaintiff"), proceeding in forma pauperis, alleges that since 1969 he has been "the victim of an illegal conspiracy" between the ILA AFL-CIO, ILA Local 1235, ILA Local 1233 and the NYSA in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. See Complaint. Plaintiff, however, alleges no discernible facts to support this allegation.On September 20, 1999, defendants NYSA, the ILA AFL-CIO, the NYSA-ILA Contract Board, ILA Local 1235, ILA Local 1233, James A. Capo, James P. Melia, Richard P. Lerner, Esq., John Bowers, Albert Cernadas, Sam DuPree, and Andre Mazzola, Esq. filed the subject motion to dismiss.
DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) authorizes dismissal of a complaint filed by a party proceeding in forma pauperis that is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). The Supreme Court has explained that this standard allows dismissal of claims based "on an indisputably meritless legal theory and claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless."Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)). "Within the former category fall those cases in which either it is readily apparent that the plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity from suit; within the latter are those cases describing scenarios clearly removed from reality." Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1990). A district court has broad discretion in making this determination. See Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 42 (2d Cir. 1983).
The Third Circuit has instructed courts to be mindful of the public's "legitimate financial interest at stake under the in forma pauperis statute, and that the judiciary's role is . . . to protect the public's interest in assuring that the in forma pauperis legislation does not serve wasteful ends." Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1089 (3d Cir. 1995). To that end, the Deutsch court held that an in forma pauperis litigant's claim may be dismissed as trivial if the court is "satisfied that the record supports a finding that a reasonable paying litigant would not have filed the same claim after considering the costs of the suit." Id.
Both the Complaint and memorandum submitted by plaintiff in connection with this matter are largely unintelligible and incomprehensible. However, the arguments which can be discerned from a careful reading of the memoranda and exhibits attached thereto are nonsensical. The Court is satisfied that plaintiff can prove no set of facts to substantiate his claim that he has been the victim of an illegal conspiracy and that a reasonable paying litigant would not have brought this claim. The Court will therefore dismiss his in forma pauperis Complaint as frivolous.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion by defendants NYSA, the ILA AFL-CIO, the NYSA-ILA Contract Board, ILA Local 1235, ILA Local 1233, James A. Capo, James P. Melia, Richard P. Lerner, Esq., John Bowers, Albert Cernadas, Sam DuPree, and Andre Mazzola, Esq. to dismiss the Complaint of plaintiff Robert D. Burton is GRANTED and plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Letter Opinion.