MORSE v. HELLER

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: October 26, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-19248
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Linda M. Morse, No. 1:21-cv-19248-NHL-SAK Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM v. OPINION & ORDER

William J. Heller,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

LINDA MARIE MORSE 32 DESMOND RUN SICKLERVILLE, NJ 08081

Appearing pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Linda Marie Morse, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint against Defendant, William J. Heller, arising out of loans that Plaintiff made to Defendant which have not been paid back; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP” application), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of fees if she submits a proper IFP application; and WHEREAS, although § 1915 refers to “prisoners,” federal courts apply § 1915 to non-prisoner IFP applications, Hickson v. Mauro, 2011 WL 6001088, *1 (D.N.J.2011) (citing Lister v. Dept. of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Section

1915(a) applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and not just to prisoners.”) (other citations omitted); and WHEREAS, the screening provisions of the IFP statute require a federal court to dismiss an action sua sponte if, among other things, the action is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to comply with the proper pleading standards, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); Martin v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2017 WL 3783702, at *1 (D.N.J. August 30, 2017) (“Federal law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.”); and WHEREAS, pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and all reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro se litigant, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), but pro se litigants “must still plead the essential elements of [their] claim and [are] not excused from conforming to the standard rules of civil procedure,” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”); Sykes v. Blockbuster Video, 205 F. App’x 961, 963 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that pro se

plaintiffs are expected to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); and WHEREAS, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is deficient in four significant ways: 1. On the form complaint provided by the Court for pro se plaintiffs, Plaintiff has checked the box for federal question jurisdiction, but in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States. See U.S. Const, Art III, Section 2 (providing that federal courts can hear “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States . . . .”); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The

district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). Plaintiff has not pleaded what Constitutional provision or federal law Defendant allegedly violated; and 2. If Plaintiff’s case is premised on diversity of citizenship instead for state law claims, Plaintiff has failed to plead the citizenship of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (providing that a district court has jurisdiction over a matter based on the diversity of citizenship of the parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs). Moreover, if Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey and if any of the Defendants are citizens of New

Jersey, which may be probable based on the addresses provided by Plaintiff in her complaint, then diversity of citizenship would be lacking; and 3. Plaintiff has failed to state a specific legal basis for her claims, which is necessary to establish subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.”); and 4. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1), which requires that “[e]ach allegation” in a complaint “must be simple, concise, and direct.” Plaintiff’s complaint relates that Defendant did this by “scamming [her] out

of her life funds” (ECF 1 at 3), but Plaintiff does not specify exactly what conduct Defendant committed that violated the law; THEREFORE, IT IS on this 25th day of October , 2021 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF 1-2) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to file Plaintiff's complaint; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to amend her complaint to properly cure the deficiencies noted above. If Plaintiff fails to do so, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

s/ Noel L. Hillman At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.