Henricks Motors Corporation et al v. General Motors Corporation
Filing
11
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 9/5/2018. (CLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
HENRICKS MOTORS CORPORATION
and WILLIAM JOHN HENRICKS,
Case No. 18‐CV‐0824 (PJS/KMM)
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
On April 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel denied the applications of
plaintiffs Henricks Motors Corporation (“HMC”) and William John Henricks
(“Henricks”) to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 3. Henricks requested that
HMC be removed from the action and that his own IFP application be reevaluated. ECF
No. 4. The case was then transferred to Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez in
anticipation of Judge Noel’s retirement. ECF No. 5.
Judge Menendez reevaluated Henricks’s IFP application and, in a report and
recommendation (“R&R”) dated May 11, 2018, recommends that it be denied and this
action be dismissed. ECF No. 6. This matter is before the Court on Henricks’s objection
to the R&R. ECF No. 7.1 The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C.
1
Henricks filed a motion to extend the time within which he had to object to the
R&R. ECF No. 10. Such an extension is unnecessary, however, as Henricks’s objection
(continued...)
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court overrules Henricks’s
objection and adopts the R&R.
Henricks notes that Judge Menendez found that he qualified financially for IFP
status but that his complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
and Henricks argues that “[t]hese are contradictory statements logically.” ECF No. 7
at 3. Henricks is incorrect. To be granted IFP status, a litigant must make two separate
showings. First, the litigant must show that he cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That inquiry has nothing to do with the content of his complaint.
Second, the litigant must show that his complaint states a claim upon which relief can
be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). That inquiry has nothing to do with whether
the litigant can afford to pay the filing fee. Thus, there is nothing at all “contradictory”
about Judge Menendez finding both that Henricks cannot afford to pay a filing fee and
that Henricks’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As Judge Menendez explained, the main problem with Henricks’s complaint is
that it fails to clearly allege that General Motors took a specific action on a specific date
that violated a specific provision of the United States Constitution or a federal statute
and that injured Henricks in a specific manner. For example, the complaint accuses
1
(...continued)
was timely filed. The Court received the objection on May 25, 2018, which is within the
14‐day period allowed by Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Henricks’s motion for an extension of
time to object is therefore denied as moot.
General Motors of “[v]iolation of the Federal Trade Com[m]ission Act of 1914.” ECF
No. 1 at 2. But the complaint gives no hint as to how General Motors violated the Act, or
how Henricks was harmed by that violation. In his objection, Henricks clarifies that he
is accusing General Motors of committing “unfair or deceptive acts” in violation of the
Act because “General Motors advertising does not give scientific factual information
about their products, but use a lot of subjective ‘puffing,’ that are deceptive.” ECF No. 7
at 5. But even in his objection, Henricks does not identify a single advertisement, or
identify the product advertised, or identify what “scientific factual information” was
omitted from the advertisement, or identify how this omission caused the
advertisement to be deceptive, or identify how he was harmed by the allegedly
deceptive advertisement.
All of the causes of action listed in Henricks’s complaint are similarly
unsupported by factual allegations sufficient to render those claims “plausible on [their]
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Thus, Henricks’s
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and must be dismissed.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
the Court OVERRULES plaintiff William John Henricks’s objection [ECF No. 7] and
ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 6]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2.
Henricks’s motion for an extension of time to object to the R&R [ECF
No. 10] is DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 5, 2018
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?