Sligh v. JP Morgan Bank et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting plaintiff fourteen days to supplement the complaint. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/29/2016. (c/m 4/29/2016 aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LISA SLIGH

*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
v
*
Civil Action No. DKC-16-1085
*
JP MORGAN BANK,
*
JEANNE B. WHITE, for Allied Mortgage Co., *
SETTLEMENT SOLUTIONS,
*
HOME CALIBER,
*
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee for
*
LSF9 Master Participation Trust
*
*
Defendants.
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending are Lisa Sligh’s Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
ECF Nos. 1, 2.

The court will grant Sligh’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.

ECF No. 2.
Sligh alleges she entered an agreement with Defendants based on “the interference of my
Property without being properly notified of anything.” ECF No. 1 at 2. She claims that “as the
trustee for the Plaintiff the Defendant1 owed fiduciary duties” to her including verifying any
contracts she made with Defendants. Id. Additionally, she claims Defendant breached their
duties [sic] by failing to lookout for the American People. Id. She alleges Defendant2 acted “in
dishonor” with her by changing, selling, and modifying documents without [her] knowledge or
consent. Id. As relief, she asks for damages. Sligh does not identify the nature of her agreement
with Defendants, the date they allegedly entered the property, or particularize the location of the
property. It is not clear where the property at issue is located.
1

Sligh does not specify to which defendant she is referring.

2

The individual Defendant is not specified by name.

The court recognizes that Sligh is self-represented and holds the Complaint to a less
stringent standard than one drafted by an attorney, see e.g. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007) (per curiam).

A plaintiff who submits an inartfully pled action which contains a

potentially cognizable claim should be given the opportunity to particularize the complaint in
order to define issues. See Johnson v. Silvers, 742 F.2d 823, 825 (4th Cir. 1984). Federal civil
pleading rules provide for a minimal pleading standard to ensure that adverse party is reasonably
informed of asserted causes of action such that he can file a responsive answer and prepare an
adequate defense. Fed.R.Civ.P 8(a)(2). Except in certain specified cases, a plaintiff's complaint
need only satisfy the “simplified pleading standard” of Rule 8(a), Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Nevertheless, “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires
a ‘showing’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 n. 3 (2007).
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,” as ‘“courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 555 (2007). 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. The allegations must “give the defendant fair notice
of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema,
N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2

Accordingly, Sligh will be granted fourteen days to supplement the Complaint to clarify
her claims and allegations. She is instructed to write the above case number on any papers she
files in this matter. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, it is this 29th day of April, 2016, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, hereby ordered:
1.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in District Court without prepaying fees or costs
(ECF No. 2) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff IS GRANTED fourteen days to supplement her complaint; and

3.

The Clerk SHALL SEND a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3