MICHAEL v. THE DITOLLA FAMILY

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiffs application to proceed informa pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Complaints are DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from entry of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the entry of this Order, this Court will direct the Clerk to dismiss all three Complaints. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 9/19/17. (sr, )(N/M)

Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LORI MICHELLE MICHAEL,

Plaint
Civil Action No.
17-0701 1(JMV)

v.
THE DITOLLA FAMILY et al,

Defendants.

LORI MICHELLE MICHAEL,

Plaint
Civil Action No.
17-06$48(JMV)

v.
THE TAXI NATIONAL
FRATERNITY et al,

Defendants.

LORI MICHELLE MICHAEL,

Plaint ff

Civil Action No.
17-07009(JMV)

v.
SARA TORO et al,

Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

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

1

Plaintiff seeks to bring these actions informapauperis pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.
1.1

§ 1915. D.E.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs applications to proceed in

formapauperis but the three complaints are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 22 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 in any of the three complaints filed.
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., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). Plaintiff sufficiently establishes his inability to
pay, and the Court grants his application to proceed informa pattperis without prepayment of fees
and costs.
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 § 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. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because Plaintiff is proceedingpro Se, the Court construes the pleadings

Unless specified, all references to “D.E. 1” are to the Complaints filed on all three docket numbers.
2

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 a pro se plaintiffs ‘bald

assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions.’” D ‘Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, No. 10-4558, 2010 WL
3719623, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2010).
The alleged facts and proposed causes of action are not entirely clear to the Court. It
appears that Plaintiffs claims are for multiple purported violations of federal antitrust and patent
laws, the Constitution, as well as common law claims of stalking, assault, rape, invasion of
privacy, and theft. Plaintiff also requested that this Court entertain her charge of Social Security
fraud. (D.E. 1 at 2-3). In the “Injuries” portion of the Complaints, Plaintiff lists various illnesses
and psychological effects but does not explain how any of the named Defendants caused those
injuries. (D.E. 1 at 4, Docket No. 17-07011 D.E. 1 at 5). Nor does Plaintiff specify the dates of

any of the alleged injuries or incidents involving the named Defendants.
The Complaints are deficient in several respects. First, Plaintiff has not set forth a basis
for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. “federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a
case if it satisfies federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331, or diversity jurisdiction

§ 1332.” Hines v. Ir’ington Counseling Ctr., 933 F. Supp. 382, 387 (D.N.J. 1996).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “[A] claim arises
under federal law if federal law creates the cause of action.” Empire Health choice Assur., Inc. v.
McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 706 (2006) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S.
804, 808 (1986)). To establish diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a), “the party

asserting jurisdiction must show that there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties”

3

as well as an amount in controversy exceeding the statutory threshold. $chneller ex rel Schneller
v. Crozer Chester Med. Ctr., 387 fed. App’x 289, 292 (3d Cir. 2010).
Here, the Complaints fail to set forth facts to support federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff
does not identify how any charge raises issues arising under federal law.

To be sure, the

Complaints cite to several federal statutes. Yet, even when viewing the Complaints liberally, the
Court is unable to ascertain a plausibly pled violation of a federal right that would create federal
question jurisdiction. In short, the nature of the causes of action pursued by Plaintiff are unclear,
and thus, the Court is unable to ascertain whether the Complaints allege a violation of the
Constitution or a federal statute.
Additionally, the Complaints fail to establish diversity jurisdiction. According to the
Complaints, Plaintiff lives in New Jersey. The addresses listed for all Defendants except one are
in New Jersey.2 Accordingly, there does not appear to be diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs
and Defendants. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332 (stating that diversity of citizenship requires plaintiffs and

defendants to be citizens of different states). For those reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction based on the allegations in the Complaints.
In addition, even construed liberally, the Court cannot determine any alleged causes of
action in the Complaints. The Complaints refer to alleged causes of action, but they fail to
plausibly plead facts to support the causes of action. it is difficult to decipher how the alleged
myriad of factual allegations are related, and more importantly, how they relate to Defendants.
Therefore, Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead any cause of action and her Complaints are dismissed.

2

The only exception is “The Lyons Family” whose last known whereabouts were in South
Korea. The four other named Defendants in that Complaint, Docket No. 17-070 1 1, are based in
New Jersey.
4

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). 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. Gottid, Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 864 (3d Cir. 1984). At this point, the Court
cannot conclude that Plaintiffs claims are futile primarily because the Court cannot determine
Plaintiffs claims. Therefore, the Court shall provide Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended
complaint3 that cures the deficiencies set forth herein. If Plaintiff does not submit an amended
complaint curing these deficiencies within thirty days, the dismissal will then be with prejudice.
A dismissal with prejudice means that Plaintiff will be precluded from filing any future suit
against Defendant concerning the allegations in the complaint.
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 19th day of September, 2017,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed informa pattperis is GRANTED; and

it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaints are DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave
to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from entry of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to
file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the entry of this Order, this Court will direct the
Clerk of the Court to dismiss all three Complaints with prejudice; and it is further

If Plaintiff does file an amended complaint which the Court finds sufficient, Defendants are 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 Defendants from
litigating the matter as they see fit.
5

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by
U.S. mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

John )Iichael Vazquez’1i.J.

6