Laurender K. Seaton v. Bresney C. Coote

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LAURENDER K. SEATON, Civil Action No. 26-7788

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER v.

BRESNEY C. COOTE, July 30, 2026

Defendant. SEMPER, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Laurender K. Seaton’s (“Plaintiff”) filing of a complaint (ECF 1, “Complaint” or “Compl.”) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 1-3, “IFP Application” or “IFP App.”), and this Court having screened Plaintiff’s submissions for sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a); and WHEREAS a district court may allow a plaintiff to commence a civil action without paying filing fees—that is, in forma pauperis—so long as the plaintiff demonstrates that he or she is “unable to pay such fees,” but must dismiss the matter if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to set forth a proper basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); and WHEREAS a “District Court has discretion to determine whether to grant IFP” applications. In re Kellam, 628 F. App’x 85 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir. 1971)); and WHEREAS based on Plaintiff’s IFP Application, made under the penalty of perjury, the Court finds that Plaintiff is without the means necessary to both pay filing fees and support herself financially. Plaintiff indicates an average monthly income of $2,400. (IFP App. at 2.) Plaintiff further indicates that she has $800 in a Capital One checking account but no other money or

savings. (Id.) Plaintiff owns a Honda Civic but indicates that she owns no other assets. (Id. at 3.) Under the “expenses,” section of her IFP application, Plaintiff indicates she pays per month: $900 for rent, $75 for utilities, $200 for food, $30 for laundry, $250 for her vehicle, and $330 in credit card payments, totaling at least $1,980 in monthly expenses. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s retained money after expenses would not allow her to pay filing fees without sacrificing basic human necessities; and WHEREAS having reviewed Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is warranted, and the application is GRANTED; and WHEREAS the Court construes a pro se plaintiff’s papers liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than the standard applied to papers filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, a pro se complaint must still comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), that “give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court need not credit a pro se party’s “‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions.’” Grohs v. Yatauro, 984 F. Supp. 2d 273, 282 (D.N.J. 2013) (quoting Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)); and WHEREAS a district court must dismiss a case if it finds that it does not have a basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action where there is a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction—a dispute between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000—pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1332. Here, Plaintiff indicates diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this Court’s subject

matter jurisdiction over the action. (Compl. at 2.) Yet both Plaintiff and Defendant appear to be citizens of New Jersey and the amount in controversy appears to be $28,028 for an outstanding deficiency balance on Defendant’s alleged default on a vehicle loan. (Id. at 1-4.) Accordingly, there is no diversity jurisdiction, and the action must arise under federal law for this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction; and WHEREAS federal question jurisdiction exists when a dispute “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff indicates that this action involves a dispute over delinquent payment of a loan, but does not set forth any facts that identify a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States such that this Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction. (See generally Compl.) Accordingly,

this Court has no basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the Complaint. Accordingly, IT IS on this 30th day of July, 2026, 1. ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 1-3) is GRANTED; and it is further 2. ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed in this action, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies discussed above. Failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this matter with prejudice; and it is further 3. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE this matter, subject to automatic reopening if Plaintiff files an amended complaint; and it is finally 4. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to

Plaintiff by regular mail.

/s/ Jamel K. Semper . HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk cc: André M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J. Parties