MURRAY v. WELLS FARGO BANK et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's IFP application is GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to file Plaintiff's complaint; Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to amend his complaint. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/3/2018. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHARLES MURRAY,
1:17-cv-07432-NLH-AMD
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
CHARLES MURRAY
5 LOG CABIN RD
SICKLERVILLE, NJ 08081
Appearing pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Charles Murray, appearing pro se, has
filed a complaint against Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, Federal
Home Loan Corp. and Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff claims that the “lower courts are
denying my secured interest and equity in the mortgage” on his
residence in Sicklerville, New Jersey; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff claims that his character has been
defamed and he has lost his property, and he seeks the discharge
of the mortgage; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed
without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP”
application), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court
may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of fees if he
submits a proper IFP application; and
WHEREAS, although § 1915 refers to “prisoners,” federal
courts apply § 1915 to non-prisoner IFP applications, Hickson v.
Mauro, 2011 WL 6001088, *1 (D.N.J.2011) (citing Lister v. Dept.
of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Section
1915(a) applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and not
just to prisoners.”) (other citations omitted); and
WHEREAS, the screening provisions of the IFP statute
require a federal court to dismiss an action sua sponte if,
among other things, the action is frivolous or malicious, or if
it fails to comply with the proper pleading standards, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448,
452 (3d Cir. 2013); Martin v. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, 2017 WL 3783702, at *1 (D.N.J. August 30, 2017)
(“Federal law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's
Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to
dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.”); and
WHEREAS, pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and
all reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro se litigant,
2
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), but pro se litigants
“must still plead the essential elements of [their] claim and
[are] not excused from conforming to the standard rules of civil
procedure,” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)
(“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary
civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes
by those who proceed without counsel.”); Sykes v. Blockbuster
Video, 205 F. App’x 961, 963 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that pro se
plaintiffs are expected to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure); and
WHEREAS, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is
deficient in four significant ways:
1.
Plaintiff has failed to state this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction over his action, whether it is based on a
federal question, or whether it is based on diversity of
citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000,
see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332;
2.
If Plaintiff’s case is premised on diversity of
citizenship, Plaintiff has failed to properly plead the
citizenship of the parties;
3.
Plaintiff has failed to state a specific legal basis
for his claims, which is necessary to establish subject matter
jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states
a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain
3
statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.”);
4.
Plaintiff has failed to provide even the most basic
facts to explain how each defendant allegedly caused Plaintiff’s
injury, see Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147,
149-50 n.3 (1984) (quotation and citation omitted) (“Although
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant
to set forth an intricately detailed description of the asserted
basis for relief, they do require that the pleadings give
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.”);
THEREFORE,
IT IS on this
3rd
day of
January
, 2018
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP application (Docket No. 1-2)
be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed
to file Plaintiff's complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to amend
his complaint to properly cure the deficiencies noted above.
Plaintiff fails to do so, this case will be dismissed for lack
If
of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
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?