WITHERSPOON v. JONES OF ONE STOP CAREER CENTER NEWARK, N.J.
OPINION re 1 Complaint Received. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/20/14. (dr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JONES OF ONE STOP CAREER
CENTER NEWARK, N.J.,
Civil Action No. 14-6094 (SRC)
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the application filed by Plaintiff Desmond
Witherspoon (“Plaintiff” or “Witherspoon”) to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of
fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigence, the Court finds
that Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and will direct
that the Complaint be filed. However, for the reasons set forth below, the Complaint must be
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court construes the pleadings liberally and holds
them to a less stringent standard than those filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). Yet under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which governs proceedings filed in forma pauperis, the
Court must examine the merits of the claims asserted and dismiss a case if it determines that the
action cannot or should not proceed. The statute provides as follows:
[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that –
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal –
is frivolous or malicious;
fails to state a claim on which relief may be
seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff’s one-page Complaint states only that Witherspoon’s “cause of action” is for
“Harassment” and demands $5,000. No additional information is provided. The standard of
review for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293
F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court cannot
draw such an inference from the Complaint here. Witherspoon alleges no facts concerning the
actions of Defendant, identified only as “Jones of One Stop Career Center Newark, N.J.” nor
how such actions violated the law or Witherspoon’s rights.
For these reasons, the Court will permit Plaintiff’s Complaint to be filed without
prepayment of the filing fee but will simultaneously order it to be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). An appropriate Order will be filed.
s/Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: October 20, 2014
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?