McCann-McCalpine v. Delaware Lottery

Opinion

INT HE UNITEDS TATDEISS TRICCOTUR T FORT HE DITSRICOTFD ELAWARE LYDOMNC CANN-MCCALPINE,

Plaintiff, :C ivAicltN ioo2.n3 -14C5 8-CF v. DELAWALREO TTEeRYat,l ., Defendants.

LyodnMc Cann-iMncDeCo,av lDeperl,aaw rPeor.S ePl inatiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

May1 42,0 24 WilmiDnegltaowna,r e c�olv, !;7udge: OnD ecem2b,12e 0r2 P3l,a iLnydtoiMnffc Cnan-McCfiaelldhps ii ne prseoC omplinat ihmniatstt e(rD..2 I)H. eh abse egnrt aenlde atvpoer oceed infopramuap (eDr.4iI)sP. .ali ntAimfef'nsCd oemdp l(aDi.6n1)istt. h e operpalteiavdTeih Cneog tu.p r roctesoec drsthe eeA nm enCdoemdp laint

purstuo2a 8Un .tS §.1 C9.1 5(e)(2)(B). I.BACKGROUND Plaibnrtiitnffhgp isus r pcolratasecsdta igoanti hnDseet l aLwoatrteae nryd

BalslC ya'sa innSdop obrotosHk ec. l atihmDaset fe ndoaffnetrtseh sdet andard oddssy sfotres mp obrettsut siebnydgo thcears i(on rpo oss sfiabitllodye i ds close ththaetwy e rneou ts itnhsget ansdyasrtdbe umt) w,pi anintdeh rrsoa su ygsht em thpaatyl set shsta hnse t ansdyasrtde m.

Plaibnrtiicnfflg asi mbsr eofafoec rxh p rwearrsasn utyn,j eunsrti chment, violaotfDi eolnaswD aercee'pTstr iaPvdreea cAtciatcn,evd si olaotfi ons consumer apcfrrtoosmta eccrttohisceoso n u n(ot nbr eyh oaftl hfpe u tative cla

Plaisneteiiknffsj unrcetliivdeeaf m aangde s. IIL.EGALSTANDARDS A fedceoruamrlat py r operlany a cdtisisuomsanip sousnn tdeteh re screpernoivnigos f2i 8Uo .nSs§. 1 C9.1e )5 ((2 i)"f(tB ah)ce t iifrsoi nv oolro us

malicfiaotiusolst s,aa c t lea uipmow nh ircehlm iaebyfe g ranotrse ede,k s monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his Amended Complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed frivolous only where it relies on an “‘indisputably meritless legal theory’ or a ‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.’” Id. The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that

a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 11. A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint “show” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Jgbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. Il. DISCUSSION Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. His allegations come in the form of generalities about the “standard” odds system for sports betting, without explaining with specificity how that system works, giving examples of casinos that employ that system (and any additional fees used by such casinos), or how Defendants’

system deviates from the standard system. Plaintiff will be given leave to file a second amended complaint.! IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. This Court will issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.

' In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he is a Maryland resident. (D.I. at 3) The address he lists in the Amended Complaint and elsewhere, however, is in Delaware. Additionally, he indicated in his civil cover sheet that he is a Delaware resident. Should Plaintiff choose to file a second amended complaint, he should clarify, with factual support, the state of which he is a resident.