RHETT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 3/31/15. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ERIC RHETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 15-1846 (SRC)

OPINION

CHESLER, District Judge
Pro se Plaintiff Eric Rhett (“Plaintiff” or “Rhett”) submitted a Complaint to this Court on
March 3, 2015, together with an application to file his Complaint without prepayment of fees and
to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 Clerk of the Court file Plaintiff’s Complaint. However, under § 1915, which governs
proceedings filed in forma pauperis, the Court must examine the merits of the claims asserted
and dismiss them if it determines that the action cannot or should not proceed. For the following
reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally and
holds them to a less stringent standard than those filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972). Even so, because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court must review
his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismiss the action if it determines that:
1

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal –
(i)

is frivolous or malicious;

(ii)

fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
To evaluate whether a complaint must be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(ii) for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted, the Court must apply the same standard of review as
that for dismissing a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Grayson v.
Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002). To state a claim that survives 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 will apply this standard to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Even interpreting Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, the Court cannot ascertain from it a
comprehensible statement that would render Plaintiff plausibly entitled to relief. To wit, Plaintiff
has not articulated a cogent allegation pertaining to any unlawful action of the Defendant, which
appears to be the United States Courts. As best as this Court can construe the allegations set
forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff’s grievance appears to target discovery proceedings related to
other matters. In particular, the Court gathers that underlying Plaintiff’s submission is a
disagreement with the fact and manner of distribution regarding his late mother’s trust, and with

the conduct and decisions of his sister, who appears to have administered that trust. With respect
to the relief apparently sought in this particular action, Plaintiff appears to demand that the Court
“enforce [a] medical allowance at once”; “sanction [the] proper party for mail tampering;
contempt of Court; for direct disrespect and disobedience to the Federal Court procedure of
Service; by returning pleadings after being served.” Even construing the submission generously,
this Court is hard pressed to identify any viable claim plausibly entitling Plaintiff to relief as
against the United States Courts.
The Complaint thus fails to state facts from which it could be inferred that Defendant is
liable under any federal causes of action. This action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because it is possible that Plaintiff can re-plead his allegations in such a
manner that clearly sets forth a basis for recovery, the Court will dismiss the action without
prejudice. Plaintiff will be given forty-five days to file an Amended Complaint; if he does not,
the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the action. An appropriate Order will be filed.

s/Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: March 31, 2015

3