WOOLMAN v. COMCAST CABLE & COMMUNICATION
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/14/2011. (bdk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN,
Civil No. 11-4818 (JBS-KMW)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COMCAST CABLE &
COMMUNICATION,
Defendant.
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
This civil case was initiated by a Complaint filed by
Michael B. Woolman (Plaintiff) against Defendant Comcast Cable
and Communication, received August 22, 2011.
Plaintiff seeks
leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of fees
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The Court has reviewed his
Application and finds that he is without sufficient income or
assets to pay the filing fee, so that his application to proceed
without prepayment of fees will be granted, and the Clerk of
Court will be directed to file his Complaint in the accompanying
Order.
Where a complaint is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),
the Court is called upon to preliminarily screen the complaint to
determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim, or seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such
damages, all pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court has
completed this preliminary screening and finds as follows:
1.
Complaint.
It is indeed difficult to make sense of Plaintiff's
In answer to the simple question “what happened?” on
page 2 of the form of pro se complaint, Plaintiff states:
“The interruption as such, this company &
Verizon took over the windstream.net local
sad light& Communication, to diversify and
there lire less chips from Motorola. The
assumption as the, Bryan LGH ASUMED TO USE IN
THERE HOSPITAL. Now, and to show and use me
on the national additional TV, on maltose
stations, and air radio. For a chance to
make false assumption, at me and using me for
some illegal sites for my knowledge.”
2.
In his “Statement of Claims”, Plaintiff provides no
clarification, stating such observations as the following:
“In a
found legal system, that we all say being proud for a county so
revolved.
Now and to for see a told lie to the nation in such
renown demine, can we understand new, Found, TERRRIEM...” [See
Complaint, page 3].
3.
In the Complaint's “Statement of Jurisdiction”,
Plaintiff has checked the boxes for claim arises under the
Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States; Violation of
civil rights; and Employment discrimination, as well as the box
“Other basis for jurisdiction in federal court” which he explains
as “You'll now what for what have, I explained you to on the
compelling brief.”
2
4.
Accordingly, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule
8(a) because it fails to contain any short, plain statement of
the Plaintiff's claims and the grounds upon which they rest.
Furthermore, his assertions regarding the jurisdictional basis
are indecipherable; clearly the claim cannot arise under the
Constitution because defendant Comcast is not a state or federal
agency or actor, nor does he allege any civil rights statute or
employment statute or employment relationship, for that matter,
that could give rise to the other asserted bases for federal
court jurisdiction.
5.
In short, the Complaint fails to give any notice to the
Court or to the defendant regarding the nature of Plaintiff's
claims nor the basis of this Court's authority to act upon those
claims.
6.
The Court is mindful that this is a pro se pleading and
that “specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only
'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct.
2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
This Complaint fails to
comply with even this minimal standard.
7.
Further, it appears that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this case.
No jurisdictional ground is pled
and none is apparent from anything in the Complaint.
3
8.
Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction and that the Complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and the Complaint will be
dismissed.
9.
Plaintiff will be given one opportunity to cure these
deficiencies if he files a motion to reopen this docket and a
proposed Amended Complaint, within thirty (30) days of the entry
of this Order.
The accompanying Order is entered.
November 14, 2011
Dated
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge
4
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?