Opinion
Civil Action 22-381
04-27-2022
MICHAEL E SAMPSON, Plaintiff, v. MARK SOKOL, Defendant.
ORDER
CATHY BISSOON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint, pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Complaint is subject to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Atamian v. Burns, 236 Fed.Appx. 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he provisions of § 1915(e) apply to all in forma pauperis complaints, not simply those filed by prisoners.”). Among other things, the statute requires the Court to dismiss any action where the plaintiff “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Any leniency generally afforded pro se litigants notwithstanding, the Complaint neither articulates the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction, nor provides a short and plain statement showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff alleges that his company lost some funding opportunities upon issuance of certain patents. There is no apparent basis for exercising federal question jurisdiction on the facts alleged. The Complaint also runs afoul of Federal Rule 8 because Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts that support his claim(s). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (requiring “short and plain statement[s]” showing that the pleader is entitled to relief) and 8(d)(1) (“Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”).
To the extent that Plaintiff is pursuing claims on behalf of his company, the Court notes that “[a]lthough an individual may represent herself or himself pro se, a non-attorney may not represent other parties in federal court.” Murray on behalf of Purnell v. City of Philadelphia, 901 F.3d 169, 170 (3d Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an amended complaint, by no later May 25, 2022, that identifies a valid jurisdictional basis for proceeding, complies with Federal Rule 8 and otherwise states claim(s) upon which relief properly may be granted. Should Plaintiff not timely file such an amended complaint, the Court summarily will enter an order converting the dismissal to one with prejudice. Finally, Plaintiff must make last, best efforts in these regards, because further opportunity for amendment will not be afforded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.