Brown v. Maryland National Processing Center

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the present action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). An appropriate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum andOrder. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 8/13/12. (TRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GLORIA BLAIR BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARYLAND NATIONAL
PROCESSING CENTER,
U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND
SECURITY (FEMA),
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV1012 JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff for leave to
commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the motion, the
Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. As
a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint and will dismiss
it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed
in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action is malicious if it is
undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose
of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63
(E.D.N.C. 1987), aff’d 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987).
To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must identify the
allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009). These include “legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Id. at 1949. Second, the Court must determine whether the
complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950-51. This is a “context-specific
task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the
“mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. The Court must review the factual allegations
in the complaint “to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id.
at 1951. When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the
Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiff’s conclusion is the
-2-

most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950,
51-52.
The Complaint
Plaintiff, a citizen of the state of Indiana, brings this action against “the Maryland
National Processing Center, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA,” alleging
that FEMA has failed to assist her with the “roofing” on her property in St. Louis,
Missouri. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and “repair, take money that was paid out,
ins. too.”
Discussion
At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff has failed to state the grounds for
filing the instant action in Federal Court. From the limited allegations contained in the
complaint, there is no indication that the instant action arises under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States, and thus, federal question jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.
Even liberally construing the complaint as being brought under 28 U.S.C. §
1332, the Court must dismiss the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction. The amount
in controversy is unspecified, and plaintiff has insufficiently alleged a proper defendant
or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

-3-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
present action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
An appropriate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 13th day of August, 2012.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-