Blocker v. Reputation.com et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 6/1/15. (MRR )

FILED
2015 Jun-01 PM 02:57
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARIAN A. BLOCKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REPUTATION.COM; SPOKEO.COM;
TYLER STAMPFLI; WELL FARGO,
N.A.; U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN
OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI; CITY OF
TUPELO; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI;
TUPELO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGE; LIFE LOCK; FT. COLLINS,
COLORADO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
FEDERAL JUDGES OF THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
MISSISSIPPI,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-0474-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is presently before the court on plaintiff Marian Blocker’s In Forma
Pauperis Affidavit, (doc. 2),1 which the court deems to be Blocker’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis and for appointment of an attorney. For the reasons set forth
below, Blocker’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and for Appointment of
an Attorney is due to be denied and this case will be dismissed with prejudice.

1

Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to each
document as it is filed in the court’s record.

Blocker has filed a General Complaint Form for Pro Se Litigants, (doc. 1), in which
she alleges:
I went to all mentioned and listed parties for aid [and] assistance [and] wasn’t
helped [with] everything being “flipped” ending in my being charged [with]
felony fraud and false pretenses. All of this stemmed from hacking/theft of
information by [defendant] Stampfli [with defendant] Wells Fargo knowing
about everything [and] doing nothing. Reports were [filed] with Tupelo
[Police Department], Lifelock, [Mississippi Attorney General’s] Office, FBI,
FTC [and] FCC [with] nothing being done as well as [with] Ft. Collins [Police
Department] Financial Crimes [Division]. Tupelo [District Attorney’s] Office
used said stolen materials to illegally charge [and] extort [money] out of
myself [with] the aid of [Tupelo Police Department] Det. McKinney [and] all
[four] Circuit Judges.
(Doc. 1 at 3.) Blocker asserts that defendants are incorporated in “MS, AL, CA, CO, AZ,”
and refers the court to her attachments and enclosures, (id. at 1), which total 346 pages, (see
docs. 1-1 to 1-40; see also docs. 3-1 to 3-3 [adding an additional 54 pages of exhibits]).
As part of her “attachments and enclosures” Blocker included a report from Detective
Daniel McKinney of the Tupelo Police Department, which describes the following incident
underlying this case:
On 2/27/2013 Tyler Stampfli deposited $1350.00 in the account of Marian
Blocker. Tyler believed he was purchasing a radio. The website that he
attempted to [buy] the radio from was a fictitious site. The person he was
communicating with about the radio requested he transfer the money into an
account with the account number, routing number and name of Marian
Blocker. After transferring the money the item was never received by
Stampfli. Contact was made between Stampfli and Blocker with Blocker
admitting to receiving the money. She claims that she was “hacked”. Blocker
also admitted to spending the money. I made contact with Blocker via phone
and she also advised me that she did receive the money but did not know

2

where the money was from.2 I informed her that funds were placed into her
account by fraudulent transactions and I requested that she return the money
to Tyler. She has refused to return the money.
(Doc. 1-10 at 8 [footnote added].)
Section § 1915(e)(2) requires the court to screen complaints before granting leave to
proceed without prepayment of fees. It states:
[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
The court notes that this matter is due to be dismissed because this court does not have
venue. Under federal law:
A civil action may be brought in –

2

McKinney’s report of this phone conversation states:

During our phone conversation [Blocker] admitted to receiving the money and
spending the money. She claims that she had nothing to do with the “scam”
and states that she is also a victim of ID Theft. . . . I requested that she return
the money to Stampfli. Blocker advised me that it was not her problem that
money was placed in her account and does not feel it is her responsibility to
return the money.
(Doc. 1-10 at 10.)
3

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the
subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as
provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject
to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
The court notes that Stampfli resides in Colorado and the Tupelo and Mississippi
defendants reside in Mississippi. Therefore, the Northern District of Alabama does not have
venue pursuant to § 1391(b)(1) because all the defendants do not reside in Alabama. Also,
none of the events or omissions giving rise to Blocker’s claims occurred in the Northern
District of Alabama. Therefore, this court does not have venue pursuant to § 1391(b)(2).
Finally, nothing in the record indicates that this case could not be filed in Mississippi.
Therefore, this court does not have venue pursuant to § 1391(b)(3).
The court also notes that Blocker’s claims are frivolous. She contends that the
defendants did not aid and assist her when she claimed hacking and theft of information
arising from the mistaken deposit of funds into her account. First, the court notes that the
governmental defendants had no general duty to assist her. See generally Town of Castle
Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). Second, Blocker had no right to keep the money
mistakenly deposited into her account. The documents submitted with her Pro Se Complaint
Form show that she was indicted after she admitted that she had withdrawn the money and
4

after she refused to repay it. Indeed, Mississippi law requires Blocker to repay Stampfli the
funds he mistakenly deposited into her account. See Lyons v. Misskelley, 759 F. Supp. 324,
(S.D. Miss. 1990). The law provides Blocker no cause of action against these defendants3
based on injuries she suffered as a result of her failure to give Stampfli back his money.4
Because Blocker has failed to state a claim for relief and because venue is improper
in this court, Blocker’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and for
Appointment of an Attorney is due to be denied and her claims against all defendants will
be dismissed without prejudice. An Order denying Blocker’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis and for appointment of an attorney and dismissing her claims will be
entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.
DONE this 1st day of June, 2015.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Because the court finds that Blocker has failed to state a claim for relief, the court
makes no finding as to whether some or all of the governmental defendants are entitled to
immunity – either absolute or qualified.
4

The court makes no finding as to whether the State of Mississippi could prove that
Blocker was responsible for the scheme that induced Stampfli to deposit his money into
Blocker’s account as charged in the Indictment. (See doc. 1-10 at 1.)
5