Opinion
No. 1:98CV01111 and No. 1:99CV00353
October 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
Plaintiff Jane-Chapman: King: (hereinafter "Ms. King") filed a pro se complaint in the Middle District of North Carolina on December 30, 1998. She filed a similar complaint on February 19, 1999 in the Central District of California. On April 23, 1999, the United States District Court for the Central District of California transferred the California case to this Court. These cases were consolidated on December 15, 1999.
The consolidated complaints name as defendants the United States of America, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Probation Department, an assistant United States Attorney, a federal probation officer, a deputy clerk of court, and an agent of the Internal Revenue Service. The incomprehensible complaints contain citations, summaries, and quotations of approximately fifty different federal statues and procedural rules. In addition, the complaint contains numerous references to various constitutional provisions including each of the Constitutional Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. While it is difficult to determine the nature of Ms. King's claims, it appears that Ms. King is asserting a violation of her civil rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed "for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court has explained that a complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be only be granted if, after accepting the allegations in the' complaint as true, the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of a claim that entitles him to relief. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999).
When a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is testing the sufficiency of a civil rights complaint, a district court must be "especially solicitous" of the wrongs alleged and must not dismiss the complaint "unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any legal theory which might plausibly be suggested by the facts alleged."Harrison v. United States Postal Service, 840 F.2d 1149, 1152 (1988) (citations omitted). Furthermore, a pro se complaint is to be read liberally. Hudspeth v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345, 1347 (1978).
Despite the liberal standards applicable to pro se complaints, Ms. King's complaint has not described any acts committed by any of the defendants. Exhibits attached to the North Carolina complaint, however, seem to be the basis of Ms. King's action. The first document is an Appearance Bond that was issued in the Middle District of North Carolina on December 22, 1998 for the appearance of a material witness, Jane Parker. The second document, entitled "Pretrial Release Reporting Instructions," was issued on December 23, 1998, by Bernus E. Holmes, Probation Officer for Jane Parker, in the Southern District of Georgia. Although the North Carolina complaint does not explain the relevance of these documents, it appears that Ms. King is challenging (1) the actions of Assistant United States Attorney Cannon in obtaining a subpoena for Ms. King's appearance as a witness; (2) the actions of Special Agent Guerrini as an agent in a criminal investigation; (3) the actions of Deputy Clerk McKenzie in signing the Appearance Bond; and (4) the actions of Probation Officer Holmes in performing his duties as a probation officer. It is impossible to determine what Ms. King is claiming was done in violation of her Constitutional rights that would support an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
It appears that Jane Parker and Jane Chapman King may be the same individual.
III.
Because Ms. King's complaint has failed to state grounds upon which relief can be granted, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to her amending the complaint.