Opinion
C. A. 3:22-3779-CMC-SVH
01-03-2023
Andres L. Glenn, Plaintiff, v. Mr. Pressley, Mr. Burris, and Jasmine Moore, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge.
Andres L. Glenn (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint against Mr. Pressley, Mr. Burris, and Jasmine Moore (“Ms. Moore”) (collectively “Defendants”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review the complaint for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends this case be summarily dismissed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
At the time Plaintiff filed the complaint, he was hospitalized at G. Werber Bryan Psychiatric Hospital. [ECF No. 1 at 2]. He alleges he inherited land located in Moncks Corner, South Carolina, upon the death of his grandfather. Id. at 2. He claims that in June 2022, Mr. Pressley and Mr. Burris allowed Ms. Moore to trick or deceive him into giving her the deed to the land based on a promise that she could sell the land. Id. He requests this court award him “actual damages of 10 million dollars-999,000 900.90 dollars.” Id. at 3.
On November 7, 2022, the undersigned issued an Order and Notice identifying deficiencies in Plaintiff's complaint and permitting him until November 28, 2022, to file an amended complaint. [ECF No. 6]. The undersigned also issued a proper form order informing Plaintiff that he had not filed documents required for service of process. [ECF No. 5]. Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or service documents.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp, v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
B. Analysis
1. Failure to Meet Pleading Requirements for Complaint
Plaintiff has failed to meet the minimal standards for filing a complaint. A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 3. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Plaintiff's complaint does not meet two of the three requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
As to the first requirement, Plaintiff has omitted multiple pages from the standard complaint form and has provided no basis for the court's jurisdiction. See generally ECF No. 1. As to the second requirement, Plaintiff provided a short, plain statement, but his statement does not show he is entitled to relief. See id. He only states Mr. Pressley and Mr. Burris “allowed” Ms. Moore to take his “land deed” based on a June 2022 representation that she could sell the land. Id. at 2. He does not provide any detail as to the circumstances surrounding this assertion or how Defendants “trick[ed]” or “deceived” him. Id.
Plaintiff also failed to comply with the requirements in Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a) that “[e]very pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file number, and a Rule 7(a) designation” and that “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties.” Plaintiff omitted the first page of the court's standard complaint form, which contains the case caption. See generally ECF No. 1. He identifies “Mr. Pressley,” “Mr. Burris,” and “Jasmine Moore” as defendants on the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and mentions them in the complaint, but does not provide first names for Mr. Pressley or Mr. Burris, name them in the title of the complaint, or provide addresses for them. Id. at 2; ECF No. 2 at 1.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends summary dismissal of this action based on Plaintiff's failure to meet the minimal requirements for the filing of a complaint.
2. Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” Id. at 352; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Although the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999).
There is no presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, MD., 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999), and a plaintiff must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction in his pleadings. McNutt v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189-90 (1936); see also Dracos v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 762 F.2d 348, 350 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[P]laintiffs must affirmatively plead the jurisdiction of the federal court.”).
When a complaint fails to include “an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis[,] a federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded.” Pinkley, 191 F.3d at 399 (citations omitted). However, if the court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to a plaintiff, finds insufficient allegations in the pleadings, the court will lack subject-matter jurisdiction. Id.
The two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction are (1) diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and (2) federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The allegations contained in this complaint do not fall within the scope of either form of the court's limited jurisdiction.
Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint. See generally ECF No. 1. The diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Complete diversity of parties in a case means no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 nn.13-16 (1978). Although Plaintiff asserts an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, he has failed to provide addresses for Defendants. See generally ECF No. 1. The court is unable to determine from the complaint whether Defendants are citizens of South Carolina or some other state. However, Plaintiff recently attempted to sue Ms. Moore in another actionin which he specified her address as Columbia, South Carolina. Glenn v. Moore, C/A No. 3:22-2595-CMC-SVH (D.S.C.), ECF No. 1 at 5. Because it appears that Plaintiff and at least one defendant are citizens of South Carolina, there is not diversity of citizenship, and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case. Accordingly, the undersigned additionally recommends summary dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff's prior cases. See Colonial Penn. Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1249 (4th Cir. 1989) (“The most frequent use of judicial notice of ascertainable facts is in noticing the content of court records.” (citation omitted).
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be dismissed. Because Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to amend and failed to do so, the undersigned further recommends the dismissal be with prejudice.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).