PURISIMA v. TD BANK et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, ORDER Plaintiff's IFP application is GRANTED. Directing Clerk to file the Complaint. Ordered Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Directing Clerk to mark this case as closed. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/2/16. (jbk, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________________
ANTON PURISIMA,
Civil No. 16-2906 (NLH/JS)
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

v.
TD BANK, PEOPLE’S REPBULIC OF
CHINA, JOHN DOES 1-1.3 BILLION,
Defendants.
__________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Anton Purisima
300 9th Avenue
New York, NY 10001
Plaintiff Pro Se

HILLMAN, District Judge:
This screening follows the filing of Plaintiff Anton
Purisima’s complaint and in forma pauperis (IFP) application
[Doc. No. 1].

For the following reasons, the Court will grant

Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) the Court,
prior to docketing or as soon as practicable after docketing,
must also review the complaint in a civil action in which a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
1915(e)(2)(B).

The PLRA requires the Court to sua sponte

1

See 28 U.S.C. §

dismiss any claim if the Court determines that it is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.

Id.

A “document filed pro se is to be

liberally construed, . . . and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]”

Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972).
In considering whether the plaintiff’s complaint fails to
state a claim, the Court must accept all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.

Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d

347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005); see also Phillips v. Cnty. of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[I]n deciding a
motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), [a district court is] . .
. required to accept as true all factual allegations in the
complaint and draw all inferences from the facts alleged in the
light most favorable to” the plaintiff).
The Court must ask “‘not whether a plaintiff will
ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer
evidence to support the claims[.]’”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 583 (2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhoades, 416 U.S.
2

232, 236 (1974)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1953 (2009) (“Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading
standard for ‘all civil actions[.]’”) (citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that there is “wrong and fraudulent
information” in his TD Bank statements, purposefully generated
as an “intentional insult” based upon his Filipino national
origin.

(Compl. at 14.)

Plaintiff further alleges TD Bank is

conspiring with Chinese employees of TD Bank who are also
employed by the “People’s Republic of China” to steal his money.
(Compl. at 3.)

Plaintiff alleges claims under Title II of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, “public accommodation violations”
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000a-6, and “retaliation.”
“11 decillion dollars” in damages.

He requests

(Compl. at 4.)

While Plaintiff identifies numerous TD Bank statement
entries he alleges are fraudulent, Plaintiff fails to plausibly
allege how these false charges are related in any way to
discrimination based on his national origin.
Additionally, the Court finds that the complaint fails to
comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Specifically, Plaintiff's 18-

page complaint does not contain factual averments to support his

3

claims for relief that he was discriminated against based on his
national origin.1
Accordingly,
IT IS on this

2nd

day of

June

, 2016

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP application [Doc. No. 1) be,
and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to
file Plaintiff's complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint be, and the same hereby
is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mark this matter as
CLOSED.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff was barred from filing in forma
pauperis complaints in the Eastern District of New York in 2012
for his duplicative and vexatious filings. See Purisima v. Bo
Xilai, No. 11-5523, 2012 WL 293772 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012).
4