Okpor v. Trans Cargo LLC et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM -Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 11/4/2015.(aah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL OKPOR,
Plaintiff,

v.
TRANS CARGO, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No.15-480-SLR
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
1. Introduction. Plaintiff Michael Okpor ("plaintiff') proceeds prose and has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He filed this lawsuit on June 11,
2015, alleging violations of his civil rights, consumer fraud, theft, and breach of contract.
(D.I. 2) The court screened the original complaint, allowed plaintiff to proceed with a 42
U.S.C. § 1982 claim against defendant Luis M. Mundy ("Mundy") and supplemental
claims under Delaware law of fraud and breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, dismissed the remaining claims, and gave plaintiff leave to amend.
(D.I. 5, 6) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2015. (D.I. 7)
2. Standard of Review. A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8) if "the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726
F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013). 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. Phi/lips
v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

89, 93 (2007). Because plaintiff proceeds prose, his pleading is liberally construed and
his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations
omitted).
3. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a
court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.

Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); see, e.g.,
Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995).
4. 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. Tourscherv. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)
(applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915, the court must grant plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint unless
amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293
F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
5. A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell At/. 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, _U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347

2

(2014). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal
theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 346. When determining whether
dismissal is appropriate, the court must take three steps: "(1) identify[] the elements of
the claim, (2) review[] the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then (3) look[]
at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluat[e] whether all of the
elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged." Malleus v.
George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011 ). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the

facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 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.
6. Discussion. The amended complaint adds defendant Michael Decandia
("Decandia") and contains five counts. Plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 and also raises supplemental state claims
under Delaware law. The amended complaint contains the same basic allegations as
those raised in the original complaint, includes additional facts alleging a conspiracy,
and includes facts relative to the claims raised against Decandia. (See D.I. 5 for
relevant facts of the case)
7. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In count two, plaintiff specifically raises 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims. However, for the same reasons as discussed in the court's August 17, 2015
memorandum, the claim fails. (See D.I. 5, 6) Therefore, the§ 1983 claims will be
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

3

8. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will dismiss the 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 claim as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff will
be allowed to proceed on the remaining claims against defendants, including the 42
U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1985, and 1986 claims and supplemental state claims. A separate
order shall issue.

Date: _ _ _
ll-+[_.,± _ _ _ , 2015
_

4