Brooks v. Bogman Inc et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/27/2016. (c/m 07/27/2016 jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

- FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SR
al ,TWT,OFMARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRI c coURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
alb Jul. 21 A II: 30
Southern Division

ARVELL L. BROOKS,

.
CLERK'S OFFICE
AT GREENBELT
. _1117 P-111';
BY

Plaintiff,
Case No.: G.IH-16-441

V.
BOGMAN, INC., et at.

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Avrell L. Brooks initiated this action on February 22, 2016. ECF No. I. After
examining Plaintiffs original Complaint, the Court found that it was insufficient and did not
comply with federal pleading requirements. The Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend
the Complaint to provide brief, concise, and clear factual allegations in compliance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was also directed to supplement his Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the full filing fee because Plaintiffs initial filing
did not list any income or assets, debts or expenses. ECF No. 2.
Plaintiff was advised that, although a complaint need not contain detailed allegations, the
facts alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and require
"more than labels and conclusions," Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct.
1955 (2007), as courts are "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation," Papasan v. AIlain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932 (1986). The Complaint must
contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id at 570. Once a

claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with
the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 561.
Plaintiff was further advised that under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, shall contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs
no new jurisdictional support (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought . , " Moreover, each
"allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). "Threadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft

V.

_NMI, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Art Corp v. Twornlily, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)).
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs Supplemental Complaint, ECF No. 4, and revised
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 5. Because Plaintiff appears indigent,
the Court will grant the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
In Plaintiffs Supplemental Complaint entitled "Affidavit of Response--Plaintiff
states in total:
I: Arvell Brooks is entitled to relief, because of interference of my Property
without being compensated. Who is the man or woman that is interfering with the
use of my Property? Who authorize the man or woman to interfere with my
Property? It is the exclusive use for me to enjoy my property. What is the
complete Legal Lawful name of these people that is causing harm and
Trespassing against my property? Did I default on a negative loan or a positive
Joan? I; expect to be compensated for the interference that cause me the use of my
property and mental anguish I've endured.
•
ECF No. 4.
Plaintiffs additional filings do not cure the deficiencies noted in the Court's February 29,
2016 Order. Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), a court may dismiss a case filed in former

pauperis if it determines that the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). As recently noted
by Judge Hollander:
To be sure, this court is required to construe liberally a complaint filed by a selfrepresented litigant, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and to
examine the complaint using a less stringent standard than for those drafted by
attorneys, id; see also Gordon v. Lecke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978). This
court must allow the development of a potentially meritorious case, see Hughes v.
Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9(1980); Cruz v. Belo, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), and must assume
the . . . allegations [in the complaint] to be true, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93.
However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts are required to screen a plaintiffs
complaint when in Ibrma pauperis status has been granted. Pursuant to this
statute, numerous courts have performed a preliminary screening of non-prisoner
complaints. See, e.g., Michau v., Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 727 (4th
Cir. 2006) (applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to preliminary screening of a
nonprisoner complaint); Evans v. Albaugh, 2013 WL 5375781 (N.D.W.Va. 2013)
(28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) authorizes dismissal of complaints filed in farm(' pauperis).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court must dismiss a plaintiffs
complaint if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. . . . [Dismissal
is warranted if the complaint does not] contain factual allegations sufficient "to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and that "state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Harris v. Janssen Healthcare Products, No. ELH-15-2730, 2015 WL 5897710, at *2 (D.
Md. Oct. 6,2015).
Plaintiff has not provided any information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion that
some plausible cause of action has accrued on his behalf A separate Order follows dismissing
this case.

Dated: July

a

. 2016
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge