Hooli v. Kleim et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/17/2021. (nms)

Case 1:21-cv-00609-RGA Document 13 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 48

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BASAVARAJ HOOLI,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEANINE KLEIM, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
: Civil Action No. 21-609-RGA
:
:
:
:

Basavaraj Hooli, New Castle, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

November 17, 2021
Wilmington, Delaware

Case 1:21-cv-00609-RGA Document 13 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 49

/s/ Richard G. Andrews
ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Basavaraj Hooli, who appears pro se and has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, filed this action on April 29, 2021.

(D.I. 2).

I will review

and screen the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action as an appeal from a decision of the Justice of the Peace
Court of Delaware in and for Kent County. (D.I. 2 at 1). The state court matter was
dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint that he had filed against Jeanine
Kleim who is also a defendant in the instant case. (Id. at 3-4).
Plaintiff explains that he was homeless and went to the Dover Interfaith Mission.
(Id. at 5). At some point, he was hospitalized due to COVID, and during the
hospitalization his personal belongings, including a gold ring and a neck chain and two
passport, were taken. (Id. at 1). He places a value of about $13,750 on the stolen
items. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff claims that Interfaith personnel are responsible for the lost
items. (Id. at 5-6).
LEGAL STANDARDS
A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening
provisions of 28 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
2

Case 1:21-cv-00609-RGA Document 13 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 50

favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d
Cir. 2008).
A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim.
Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020).

See

“Rather, a claim is frivolous only

where it depends ‘on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or
“fantastic or delusional” factual scenario.’” Id.
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). 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 Plaintiff 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).
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and, therefore, 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. 89, 94 (2007).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting the wellpleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations “could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
“Though ‘detailed factual allegations’ are not required, a complaint must do more
than simply provide ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action.’” Davis v. Abington Mem’I Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014)
3

Case 1:21-cv-00609-RGA Document 13 Filed 11/17/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 51

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In addition, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to
show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S.
10 (2014). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of
the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 11.
When reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court should follow a three-step
process: (1) consider the elements necessary to state a claim; (2) identify allegations
that are merely conclusions and therefore are not well-pleaded factual allegations; and
(3) accept any well-pleaded factual allegations as true and determine whether they
plausibly state a claim. See Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir.
2016); Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014).

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.
DISCUSSION
The Complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I have reviewed the

Complaint and it does not raise a federal civil claim for violations of the United States
Constitution or federal statutes.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

While it is not clear whether

the parties are citizens of different states, it is clear that the claimed damages are
significantly below what is required for diversity jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to appeal a state court order, his remedy does not
lie in federal court.

There is no appellate jurisdiction in this Court for appeals from

state court, and, in particular, from a Justice of the Peace Court.
4

Case 1:21-cv-00609-RGA Document 13 Filed 11/17/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 52

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will the dismiss the Complaint for want of
jurisdiction.

The Court finds amendment futile.

An appropriate order will be entered.

5