Martin v. Wells Fargo Advisors
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. 2 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 10/3/16. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
YOHONIA MONIQUE MARTIN,
WELLS FARGO ADVISORS,
No. 4:16-CV-1344 NAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action. The motion is
granted. Additionally, this action is dismissed as frivolous.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions”
and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A plaintiff must
demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”
Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.
The complaint is composed of incoherent gibberish. Apparently, plaintiff’s allegations
stem from a 2012 case from the Northern District in California, which was settled by plaintiff
and Wells Fargo Bank. Mohonia v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 3:12-CV-244 MEJ (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff attempted to challenge the settlement more than two years after the case was dismissed,
and the court denied the request for lack of jurisdiction. Id. (Doc. #51). The Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal from the order because it raised no substantial
questions. Mohonia v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 15-16006 (9th Cir. August 12, 2015).
For relief in this action, plaintiff asks “to be considered a private fund advisor by the
Plaintiff’s allegations are legally frivolous. The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the
requested relief. And to the extent that plaintiff is attempting to challenge the settlement in the
California case, the Court lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2016.
/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
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?