Meadows v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs 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 Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. # 4 ] is DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/29/14. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Cleothrus Meadows 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).
When 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).
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in this action against Pinnacle Entertainment,
Inc. Plaintiff alleges that he was gambling at Lumiere Place on December 17,
2012, when a security guard “[took] him to the back” and told plaintiff he “wasn’t
playing enough money.” Plaintiff complains that his picture was taken without his
consent and that he was told “[his] kind wasn’t welcome here.” Plaintiff states that
this embarrassed him and made him feel uncomfortable. He asks this Court to
charge defendant with discrimination.
At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff has failed to state the specific
jurisdictional grounds for filing this action in federal court.1 To the extent that
plaintiff is attempting to bring this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, subject matter
jurisdiction does not exist, given that plaintiff has failed to assert diversity of
citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Moreover, plaintiff does not claim, nor does is it appear based on the facts
set forth in the complaint, 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.2 Last, plaintiff does not allege, nor does it
appear, that defendant is a state actor, and thus, there can be no cause of action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with the foregoing,
On page 1 of the complaint [Doc. #1], plaintiff states that his ground filing
this case in Federal Court is “Discrimination.”
Although the Court must liberally construe plaintiff's factual allegations, it
will not supply additional facts or construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes
facts that have not been pleaded. See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 195051 (2009) (legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action that are supported by mere conclusory statements are not entitled to the
assumption of truth).
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 Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Dated this 29th day of January, 2014.
JOHN A. ROSS
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?