Green v. Henderson

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 11/8/2016. (cna)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

RANDY GREEN,
Plaintiff,

v.

)

)

)

)

) Civ. Action No. 16-868-GMS
)

CLEMENTINE HENDERSON,
Defendant.

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Randy Green ("Green"), filed this action on September 23, 2016. (DJ.2.)
He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 4.) He asserts diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1332. The
court proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2).
I. BACKGROUND
Green, who resides in Marietta, Georgia, alleges that the defendant Clementine
Henderson ("Henderson"), who resides in Wilmington, Delaware, committed fraud when she
forged a power of attorney in order to "get a check in someone else's name in which she needed
legal guardianship to receive the check." (D.I. 2.) Green seeks damages in the amount of
$10,000.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions
of28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 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); 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. Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515
F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Green
proceeds pro se, 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).
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). 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)
(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 of28 U.S.C. § 1915, the
court must grant Green leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,114 (3d Cir. 2002).
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 ofShelby, _U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed,

2

however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at
346.
Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, 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, the court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir.
2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 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

III. DISCUSSION
Green invokes the jurisdiction of this court by reason of diversity of citizenship of the
parties. Green is a resident of the State of Georgia and he alleges that Henderson is a resident of
the State of Delaware. He seeks $10,000 in monetary damages. Diversity jurisdiction requires
that the matter in controversy is between citizens of different States and the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of$75,000, exclusive ofinterest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
The amount in controversy is generally decided from the face of the complaint itself.
Angus v. Shiley Inc., 989 F.2d 142, 145 (3d Cir. 1993). Here, Green has alleged a sum certain

that is far below the requisite $75,000 amount in controversy. Given that Green seeks far less

3

than $75,000 in damages, the court concludes that he cannot satisfy the amount-in-controversy
requirement of28 U.S.C. § 1332.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The court finds amendment futile.
An appropriate order will be entered.

__
N_()../_c(~_, 2016
Wilmington, Delaware

4