KARAS v. HANNAFORDS SUPERMARKET

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by 5/7/12. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PAULA J. KARAS
Plaintiff
v.
HANNAFORDS SUPERMARKET,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
) 2:12-cv-00116-NT
)
)
)
)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Paula J. Karas has sued Hannafords Supermarket, alleging that on April 4, 2012, she
purchased adulterated food from the Hannafords Supermarket located in Scarborough, Maine,
and that as a result of her “ingestion” of the foodstuffs she suffered “food adulteration
poisoning.” Karas has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and has provided an
affidavit of indigency. I now grant her leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Karas is a resident of
Milford, Massachusetts, and her sole source of income is Social Security benefits based upon her
disability. Karas has affirmed under penalty of perjury that she has no assets and she clearly
qualifies for IFP status as she has been granted leave to proceed in that fashion in the numerous
cases she has previously filed in the District of Massachusetts and other federal courts
throughout the United States, a PACER inquiry revealing that since April, 2005, Karas has filed
42 civil actions in various courts, excluding additional bankruptcy and appellate matters.
Karas has a particular penchant for raising claims about adulterated food and has done so
in numerous cases in the District of Massachusetts. Those cases include the following: Karas v.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, C.A. No.-11-40186-FDS; Karas v. Hood, C.A. No. 11-40116FDS (closed May 5, 2011); Karas v. Honey Dew Donuts, C.A. No. 10-40237-FDS (closed Apr.

29, 2011); Karas v. Dunkin Donuts, C.A. No. 10-40236-FDS (closed Apr. 29, 2011); Karas v.
Food and Drug Admin., C.A. No. 07-10504-DPW (closed July 24, 2007); and Karas v. United
States Department of Agriculture, C.A. No. 07-10429-DPW (closed July 24, 2007). Based upon
my review of Karas’s litigation history and the allegations in the current complaint, it appears to
me that Karas has most likely failed to state a claim. However, in order to give Karas every
opportunity to correct the pleading deficiencies and the appearance of a frivolous claim, I will
give her an opportunity to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed.
In order to adequately present a viable claim based upon diversity jurisdiction in the
context of this pleading Karas must provide factual content relating to her purchase of the
allegedly adulterated food at Hannafords in Scarborough, Maine, and she must also provide
factual content regarding the nature of the harm she suffered, including any medical treatment
she received as a result of this incident. Her “defendant unlawfully harmed me” pleading,
without any factual content, does not provide a sufficient factual basis in order for this Court to
draw a plausible inference that the defendant is liable for any misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662 (2009). Additionally her complaint does not comport substantially with the pleading
requirements of Rules 8(a) and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil of Procedure. Karas has until
May 7, 2012, to submit a satisfactory amended complaint, failing which I will recommend
dismissal of this action.
CERTIFICATE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
So Ordered.
April 16, 2012

/s/ Margaret J. Kravchuk
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2