Hunter v. Chrysler Corporation

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs 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, 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 all remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/16/2015. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGIA HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-1576-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this action [Doc. #2]. Based upon plaintiff’s financial affidavit, the motion will
be granted. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss
this case, without prejudice.
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 Ait 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 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).
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 most plausible or
whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 51-52.
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
2

plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action for unspecified monetary damages against
Chrysler Corporation. For her entire “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff summarily
alleges, “On October 14, 2012 Major Hunter III died as a result of the car he was
driving. Pontiac Caprice.”
Discussion
At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff has failed to state the grounds for
filing this action in Federal Court. Liberally interpreting the complaint, the Court
will construe this action as having been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
mandates that diversity of citizenship exist among all parties and that the amount in
controversy exceed $75,000. It is unclear whether subject matter jurisdiction exists
in this case. The Court, however, will not instruct plaintiff to file an amended
complaint with proper allegations of federal jurisdiction, because even assuming,
arguendo, that jurisdiction is proper, plaintiff has failed to state a claim or cause of
action against Chrysler Corporation.
More specifically, plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim
for relief that is plausible on its face.

Plaintiff’s allegations are mere legal

conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, which are
3

not entitled to the assumption of truth. Because there are no non-conclusory
allegations against Chrysler Corporation, the complaint Astops short of the line
between possibility and plausibility of >entitlement to relief.=@ Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 557; see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78 (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). For these reasons, the Court will
dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
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, 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 all remaining pending motions are
DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 16th day of October, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4