McMath v. Campbell et al

Filing 5

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 this action is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/9/2015. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SHEILA MCMATH,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BETTY CAMPBELL, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:15CV853 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The motion will be granted. Additionally, having reviewed the case, the Court will
dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 Alacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
328 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). 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). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not plead
Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

The Complaint
In her pro se complaint against Betty Campbell, Marc Campbell, Natan Mosley,
Unknown Brooks, Robert Taylor, and Unknown Ballard, plaintiff, Sheila McMath, asserts
generally a violation of her “human/civil rights.”
Plaintiff has not alleged any jurisdictional grounds for filing the instant action in Federal
Court, other than stating that she is bringing the case under the “14th Amendment.” However,
none of the aforementioned defendants appear to be state actors. Rather, all of the defendants
appear to be members of the Jehovah’s Witness Church. Plaintiff states that she stayed in the
Campbell’s home for a period of time after being evicted from her home, and that she attended
church with the Campbells. Plaintiff claims that she also stayed in the home of defendant
Mosley and discussed the scripture with defendant Mosley. Plaintiff claims that she attended
“Tuesday Meetings” with Mr. Brooks where they discussed the scripture, and that she attended
private meetings with “Elder Taylor” and a congregation meeting with defendant Ballard.” At
all of these meetings, plaintiff claims she discussed: (1) false teachings that were not up to
Jehovah’s Witness standards; (2) harassments and terrorism; (3) wrong conduct within the
church, including homosexuality, gambling, political election/voting, and polygamy; (4) the
celebration of holidays; (5) unfair human rights/discrimination/lack of employment; (6)
electronics use/shocks/medical issues originating from use of electronics; and (7) government
spying through satellites and telecommunications.
As plaintiff has mentioned the 14th Amendment in her complaint, the Court presumes that
plaintiff is bringing the case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but in her statement of claims,
plaintiff asserts that she would like the Court to investigate who is organized/allowed to operate
the “Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses.” As noted above, none of the purported defendants in this
action are state actors.

-2-

In her request for relief, plaintiff additionally seeks the Court to inquire: “(1) Why does
Jehovah’s Witnesses have bad conduct, they do not approve? (2) Who changed Jehovah’s
Witnesses title/name? (3) [Why] do Jehovah’s Witnesses need protection/restrained order
everywhere…? and (4) [Why] do Jehovah’s Witnesses need clean ent. [sic] those operating
without approval?” Plaintiff also seeks 80 million dollars in monetary relief.
Discussion
To state a claim under ' 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a person acting under color
of state law committed the acts which form the basis of the complaint. Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328
(1986). As noted above, none of the defendants in this action are state actors, thus, plaintiff
cannot bring her claims against defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or the 14th Amendment.
Plaintiff has failed to state adequate grounds for filing the instant action in Federal Court.
Although plaintiff broadly states that this case deals with “human/civil rights,” and “religious
freedom,” there is no indication that plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit actually arise under the
Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.1 Thus, federal question jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.
Plaintiff’s claims, even construed liberally, do not provide this Court with jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although plaintiff has alleged generally that the amount in controversy
is over $80 million, she has not alleged that the parties have diversity of citizenship from one
another. As such, the case will be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

1

Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a federal statute.
-3-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(h)(3).
A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2015.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-