Ballard v. Global Tel Link (GTL) et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave 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 complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's pendant state claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum andOrder. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/29/13. (LAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

(I’)SLA BALLARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLOBAL TEL LINK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-974-NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of (I’)sla Ballard for leave
to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #2].
Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the motion, the
Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay the filing fee, and therefore,
the motion will be granted. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth below, the Court
will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if “it lacks an

arguable basis in either law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328
(1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does
not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give
the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the
plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The named defendants are Global Tel Link, Western Union, and Toyota
Motor Company. Plaintiff alleges that defendants “participated in illegal actions of
intentionally failing to NOT ask for (verified) personal identification when each
defendant debited the plaintiff[’s] bank account.” Plaintiff claims that defendants
violated his First Amendment rights, because “money is speech”; his Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights relative to the “security of [his] person and effects”;
his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to not be deprived of life and liberty;
his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; and his
2

Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of “full protection and guarantee.” In
addition, plaintiff generally asserts pendent state-law claims for theft and fraud.
Discussion
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant
acted under color of state law, and (2) that the alleged conduct deprived the
plaintiff of a constitutionally-protected federal right. Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa,
557 F.3d 564, 571 (8th Cir. 2009). In the instant complaint, plaintiff has failed to
allege, and there is no indication, that any of the named defendants are state actors
within the meaning of § 1983. Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations do not rise to the
level of constitutional violations and fail to state a claim or cause of action under §
1983. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Because plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed, all remaining pendent
state claims will be dismissed, as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine
Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (if federal claims are dismissed before
trial, remaining state claims should also be dismissed); Hassett v. Lemay Bank &
Trust Co.,851 F.2d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 1988) (where federal claims have been
dismissed, district courts may decline jurisdiction over pendent state claims as a
"matter of discretion").
3

In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave 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 complaint is legally
frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's pendant state claims are
DISMISSED, without prejudice.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2013.

________________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4