MICHAEL v. GARRETT

Filing 7

OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 10/2/2017. (JB, )

Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LORI MICHELLE MICHAEL,

Plaintff

Civil Action No. 17-5665
OPINION

V.

FORMER CONGRESSMAN SCOTT
GARRETT,

Defendant.

John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.

On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff Laurie Michelle Michael filed an initial complaint. D.E. 1. On
August 22, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff informapatiperis status pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.

§ 1915

but dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint without prejudice upon screening pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.

§

1915(e)(2)(B). D.E. 4, 5. Plaintiff filed this Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) on September
2$, 2017.1 D.E. 6.

Pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because Plaintiffs claims are frivolous and fail to state a
cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff is precluded from filing any future suit against Defendant

concerning the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint or Amended Complaint.

The Court will construe Plaintiffs letter addressed to “Your Honorable Judges” and “Members
of the Press as well” as Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. D.E. 6. In addition, although the letter
was filed late, the Court will excuse the tardy filing because Plaintiff is proceeding pro so.

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. 2$ U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). When considering dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(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).
Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed. 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. 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. Iqbat,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes Plaintiffs

Amended Complaint liberally and holds it to a less stringent standard than papers filed by
attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). “The Court need not, however, credit a
pro se plaintiffs ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions.” D ‘Agostino v. CECOMRDEC, No. 104558, 2010 WL 3719623, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2010).

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs original Complaint without prejudice, D.E. 4, 5, noting that
Plaintiffs claims were unclear and included an amalgam of assertions that did not appear to be
connected. For example, Plaintiff accused Defendant of abusing the Patriot Act, thefi, trespass,
and a myriad of other wrongdoings. Moreover, the allegations were conclusory and without
adequate factual support. The Court noted that, among other deficiencies, Plaintiffs Complaint
failed to set forth any counts or specific causes of action.

The Amended Complaint fares no better. Indeed, instead of bringing some form of clarity
to Plaintiffs claims, the Amended Complaint veers in the opposite direction. The allegations in
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are mainly unconnected statements that include apparent
grievances against a number of people. The disjointed allegations include, in order, statements
about Governor Christie, “Donald Tnimp[’s]

.

.

.

Executive Order against Muslims,” the “Mayor

of the City, Dwayne Warren,” a person blowing up her apartment, Scott Garrett, hate crimes, the
fact that “[n]o man can be called a husband without a proper wedding band on his finger,” and
“spam mailings.” Am. Compi. at 1-2. Plaintiff also refers to herself as “Secretary of State of NJ,
Diplomat.” Am. Compi. at 2. Plaintiff attaches a PSE&G bill and a “New HIB Definition.” Am.
Compl. at 4-7. The foregoing is just a sampling, and the full Amended Complaint cannot be read
with any rational understanding of Plaintiff s alleged cause(s) of action. The Amended Complaint,
like the original Complaint, sets forth no counts and fails to indicate any specific cause of action
against Defendant (or any person mentioned).
When dismissing a case brought by a pro 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). A 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 $58, $64 (3d Cir. 1984). Here, if the Court could construe some semblance
of Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant, she would have the opportunity to submit a second
amended complaint.

However, in light of the disjointed and random content of Plaintiffs

Complaint and Amended Complaint, the Court finds that any further amendment would be futile.

3

Therefore, Plaintiffis Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A
dismissal with prejudice means that Plaintiff is precluded from filing any future suit against
Defendant concerning the allegations in the complaint or amended complaint. An appropriate
form of Order accompanies this Opinion.

Dated: October 2, 2017

John Michael Vazq/ez,QJ.$.D.J.

4