Azubuko v. Thrifty Financial Services Incorporation et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 9/14/2011. (dpv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-23280-CIV-LENARD
CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THRIFTY FINANCIAL SERVICES
INCORPORATION, LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
MASSACHUSETTS’ REGISTRAR OF
MOTOR VEHICLES AND CLERK
LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Chukwuma E. Azubuko’s Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. 3), filed on September 7, 2011.
Upon plaintiff’s submission of an affidavit of indigency in support of a motion to
proceed without payment of the filing fee, a district court may screen the complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to make certain the action is not frivolous, malicious or fails to
state a claim for relief. See Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002). A claim
is frivolous if it “is without arguable merit either in law or in fact,” Mitchell v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1315 (11th Cir. 2001), or if it describes “fantastic
or delusional scenarios.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). If a court
“finds from the face of the complaint . . . that the factual allegations are clearly baseless or

that the legal theories are indisputably meritless,” the Court may dismiss the suit without
further delay since such suits “unduly burden the courts, obscure meritorious claims, and
require innocent parties to expend significant resources.” Williams v. Sec. for the Dept. Of
Corrections, 131 Fed. Appx. 682, 686 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotations and citations omitted).
Section 1915(e)2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) such
that the Court can dismiss a complaint for failure to satisfy the standards of that Rule. See
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997).
Here, in his typed, pro se Complaint (D.E. 1), Plaintiff alleges a litany of grievances
against four defendants. The Complaint contains several problems.
First, Plaintiff alleges nearly every possible basis for federal subject matter
jurisdiction, including diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. As to diversity
jurisdiction, it is plain from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff’s citizenship is not
diverse from three of the four defendants. Complete diversity, and consequently jurisdiction,
does not exist under this theory.
Combing the Complaint for claims arising under a federal question or statute, the
Court only finds references to the First and Eleventh Amendments. The former is mentioned
in the damages section of the Complaint with no indication as to which of Plaintiff’s First
Amendment rights have been violated; the latter, referenced in Count Six, does not create a
private right of action. Thus, the Court finds that no federal question jurisdiction exists here.
Reviewing the Plaintiff’s claims reveals a smörgåsbord of poorly pled common law
causes of action (deprivation of property interest, negligence, unfair practices and
2

anticipatory breach of contract) and wholly imagined claims never before seen in this Court
(condemnation of the plaintiff to impact rule, desideratum or lack of skill, trespassers of the
law and non-recourse to the Eleventh Amendment).
Despite a pro se complaint being “held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court finds
that nothing in Plaintiff’s Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, much
less supports jurisdiction in this Court. It is also worth noting here that all parties are
residents of Massachusetts and New York, thus lack of personal jurisdiction and improper
venue would be further obstacles to Plaintiff’s filing suit in this Court.
Having reviewed the Complaint and the record and failing to find a basis for any
of Plaintiff’s claims, his Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it
is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiff Chukwuma E. Azubuko’s Complaint (D.E. 1), filed on September
7, 2011, is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

2.

Plaintiff Chukwuma E. Azubuko’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
(D.E. 3) is DENIED as moot.

3.

This case is now CLOSED.

3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 14th day of
September, 2011.

_________________________________
JOAN A. LENARD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4