Cordon v. Santana
OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 10/16/17. (cm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 17-4722
MATTHEW J. SANTANA,
John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff Cyndi Cordon (“Plaintiff’) seeks to bring this action informa pattperis pursuant
to 2$ U.S.C.
1915. D.E. 1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs
application to proceed in forma pauperis but the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Specifically, Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead a claim.
Under Section 1915, this Court may excuse a litigant from prepayment of fees when the
litigant “establish[es] that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Walker v. People Express
Airlines, Inc., $86 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). Plaintiff sufficiently establishes her inability to
pay, and the Court grants her application to proceed informapauperis without prepayment of fees
However, when allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must review
the complaint and dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune. 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2). When considering dismissal under
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).
Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012). To state a claim that survives a Rule
1 2(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. Twombty, 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).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding 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). “The Court need not, however, credit apro se plaintiffs ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal
conclusions.’” D’Agostino v. CECOMRDEC, No. 10-4558, 2010 WL 3719623, at *1 (D.N.J.
Sept. 10, 2010).
The allegations in this case are far from clear; the Complaint is rambling, disorganized,
and disjointed. The Complaint also fails to provide the Court with a timeline as to the myriad of
factual assertions. Plaintiff begins by stating that she “had to profile the cop murders before they
happened in ESX-L 4607-11.” D.E. 1 at 8. Plaintiff then alleges that her “RICO case is with the
Hell’s Angels.” Id. As background, Plaintiff provides that she could be in Mensa, understands
Boolean algebra, and has an episodic memory. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that she “tied
the Russian mob to the Hell’s Angels.
got [herself] hacked from Russia on purpose in one of
the cases by baiting an HA in a shelter with the intent to gather the specific type of evidence.”
Id. at 9.
Plaintiff also discusses how Matthew Santana (“Santana”) moved into her apartment and
óontinuously harassed her about the heat not working. Id. Santana allegedly threatened to sue
Plaintiffs landlady over the lack of heat, which Plaintiff believes constituted blackmail and
harassment. Id. at 10. Plaintiff claims that she has proof of Santana’s harassment and
threatening statements in the form of emails and text messages. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Santana
had Bronx shelter gang members break into her apartment and rewire her boiler so that the heat
in her apartment could not be turned off. Id. at 12. Plaintiff believes that Santana and the gang
members rewired the boiler so that she would have to live in shelters, which they oversee, and
have access to torturing her. Id.
Additionally, Plaintiff states that she will soon file a claim against Demi Washington,
who appears to be her son’s ex-fiancé. Plaintiff apparently will allege claims of hacking and
kidnapping against Ms. Washington. Id. at 13-14. Plaintiff also describes how Apple iPhones
can be hacked and that her “forensics expert, who is an ex NJ cop, says that you can recover
hacked texts, pictures and videos, and content hacked and removed from apps on your phone, but
not emails.” Id.
Even construed liberally, the Court cannot ascertain any alleged federal causes of action
in the Complaint. Plaintiff sets forth no counts, and she fails to indicate any specific cause of
action. See Kassin v. US. Postal Serv., No. 11-1482, 2011 WL 6002836, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 30,
2011) (finding that apro se plaintiffs discussion of factual allegations, without specifying a
legal cause of action, was insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss). The Court also cannot
ascertain diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving diversity jurisdiction, which
requires proof of the parties’ diversity of citizenship as well as the existence of a matter in
controversy exceeding the value of S 75,000. McCann
281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C.
Newman Irrevocable Ti-., 45$ F.3d
§ 1332). Plaintiffs case does not appear to exceed the
value of $ 75,000. In fact, Plaintiff says money damages are slight and appears to ask for
$10,000 inrelief. D.E. 1 at6.
Reading the Complaint as liberally as possible, Plaintiff is alleging (in part) vandalism
against $antana for having the Bronx shelter gang members rewire her apartment boiler so that it
cannot be turned off. If Plaintiff believes she is the victim of a crime, then she should
immediately file a report with the police. If Plaintiff believes she is the victim of a tort, then she
should file a complaint in state court. At present, it is entirely unclear to the Court what Plaintiff
is actually alleging. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead any cause of action and her
Complaint is dismissed.
When dismissing a case brought by apro se plaintiff, a court must decide whether the
dismissal will be with prejudice or without prejudice, which affords a plaintiff with leave to
amend. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 110-11 (3d Cir. 2002). The district
court may deny leave to amend only if (a) the moving party’s delay in seeking amendment is
undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the non-moving party or (b) the amendment
would be futile. Adams v. Gould, Inc., 739 F.2d 85$, $64 (3d Cir. 1984). At this point, the Court
cannot conclude that Plaintiffs claims are futile. Therefore, the Court shall provide Plaintiff
thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint1 that cures the deficiencies set forth herein,
including a clear recitation of pertinent facts, setting forth a specific cause (or causes) of action,
and indicating which alleged facts support the cause(s) of action. If Plaintiff does not submit an
amended complaint curing these deficiencies within thirty days, the dismissal will then be with
If Plaintiff does file an amended complaint which the Court finds sufficient, Defendant is not
precluded from filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court’s role at this stage
is to perform a screening function. The Court’s ruling does not prejudice Defendant from litigating
the matter as he sees fit.
prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice means that Plaintiff will be precluded from filing any
future suit against Defendant concerning the allegations in the Complaint. An appropriate form
of Order accompanies this Opinion.
Dated: October 16, 2017
JOHN MICHAEL VAZQU, U.D.J.
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?