Lamar v. Bank of America

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 13 and 14 Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/2/2012. (nms)

l
!

t

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SUSAN L. LAMAR,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 12-400-RGA

BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Susan L. Lamar, Cornelius, North Carolina, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

July~012

Wilmington, Delaware

[
'

!
i

Plaintiff Susan L. Lamar appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (D. I. 7.) On May 3, 2012, the Court conducted an initial review and

screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8), and dismissed the
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (D. I. 10, 11).
Plaintiff was given leave to file an Amended Complaint to properly assert the grounds
for this Court's jurisdiction and to cure any pleadings defects. (/d.)
Plaintiff has filed several documents in an attempt to comply with the Court's
Order. These documents consist of a three-page "Amended Complaint" that provides
Delaware addresses for both defendants (0.1. 12); a one-page document "requesting
context of complaint reviewed," with five pages of miscellaneous documents attached
(D.I. 13); and a ten-page document (which might be characterized as an Amended
Complaint) which sets forth a "timeline of events attached for clarification." (D.I. 14).
None of Plaintiff's filings cure the pleading defects identified in the Court's May 3,
I

2012 memorandum opinion and order. There is no identifiable theory as to why this
Court has jurisdiction. There is no identifiable theory of a cause of action against the
Bank of America.
The Court provided Plaintiff an opportunity to correct her pleading deficiencies,

;

r

I
I
I
r
"

to no avail. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (the court may curtail or
deny a request for leave to amend where there is "repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed" and there would be "futility of amendment.").
Therefore, as with the original Complaint, the Court will dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). While it is likely that allowing leave to amend will prove to be

l
I'

futile, the Court will nevertheless give Plaintiff another chance to file an amended
complaint.

l
I

1

I
!
f

!

An appropriate order will be entered.

t

f

!

f

f

2

r
f

'
{