Stone et al v. Popular Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER directing the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint that incorporates all the causes of action against all the Defendants that Plaintiffs wish to pursue at this time within thirty days of the date of this order. The Court will then review the Amended Complaint for frivolity and determine at that time which claims shall proceed. Plaintiff currently listed as John Doe is DISMISSED from this action; if he wishes to assert claims in this case, he may provide his legal name in the Amended Com plaint. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to comply with federal pleading standards in their Amended Complaint. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 15.6 for failure to obey a court order. The clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff Christine Stone at the address listed on the docket. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 8/22/2013. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHRISTINE STONE, DAVID
KEVIN SHANYFELT,
JEANETTE P. BOWEN, MARK
W. LESMAN, RICHARD
STANLEY, PHILLIP ANDREWS,
and JOHN DOE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
POPULAR INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-CV-2685-RWS

ORDER
On August 14, 2013, Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill entered an Order
[13] permitting Plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The case
was then referred to the undersigned for a frivolity determination.
Background
Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed in this action on July 30, 2013 [8]. The
Complaint alleges multiple causes of action against numerous banks,
individuals, and entities involved in transactions related to mortgage loans
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, other federal laws, and state law. This
case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where it was originally filed, to this Court on August 9,
2013 [11].
Analysis
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), “the court shall dismiss the case
at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” A claim
is frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual
allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal theories are “indisputably
meritless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carrol v. Gross,
984 F.2d 393, 393 (11th Cir. 1993).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” While this pleading standard does not require “detailed factual
allegations,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct.
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). Because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, their “pleadings are held to a
less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore,
be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263
(11th Cir. 1998). “This leniency, however, does not require or allow courts to
rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Thomas
v. Pentagon Fed. Credit Union, 393 F. App’x 635, 637 (11th Cir. 2010).
Given the current state of the pleadings in this case, it is impossible for
the Court to conduct a frivolity review at this time. The Court notes three major
deficiencies with Plaintiffs’ Complaint. First, the Court is unable to exactly
determine the causes of action that Plaintiffs intend to assert and against whom
those claims are asserted. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is at times rambling and
incoherent. Plaintiffs do not provide specific factual allegations that support
each claim, and Plaintiffs set forth a long list of Defendants but do nothing to
tie specific Defendants to specific asserted claims. As such, Plaintiffs have
failed to comply with federal pleading standards.
Second, Plaintiffs do not provide any reason why their claims should be
joined into a single action. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, a party
3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

seeking joinder must establish two conditions: (1) a right to relief arising out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and
(2) some question of law or fact common to all persons seeking to be joined.
When evaluating the propriety of a specific instance of joinder, the court “is
guided by the underlying purpose of joinder, which is to ‘promote trial
convenience and expedite the resolution of disputes, thereby eliminating
unnecessary lawsuits.’” Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Alexander v. Fulton County, Georgia, 207 F.3d 1303, 1323 (11th Cir.
2000)). As currently drafted, the Complaint fails to satisfy either condition of
Rule 20.
Third, the Court notes that a Plaintiff has moved to appear as a John Doe
[9]. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff John Doe’s request, which states that he
wishes to appear as John Doe “because of retaliation slander, defamation of
character the exposing of threats to public safety due to fraudulent practices of
the defendants” [9]. The Court finds that these conclusory statements are
insufficient to allow this Plaintiff to proceed as a John Doe.

4

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Conclusion
As such, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an Amended Complaint that
incorporates all the causes of action against all the Defendants that Plaintiffs
wish to pursue at this time within thirty days of the date of this order. The
Court will then review the Amended Complaint for frivolity and determine at
that time which claims shall proceed. Plaintiff currently listed as John Doe is
DISMISSED from this action; if he wishes to assert claims in this case, he may
provide his legal name in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are ORDERED
to comply with federal pleading standards in their Amended Complaint. Failure
to do so will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 15.6 for
failure to obey a court order.
The clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff
Christine Stone at the address listed on the docket.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd

day of August, 2013.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge

5

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

6

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)