SHABAZZ v. CRAWFORD et al
Filing
2
OPINION/ORDER that Plaintiffs application to proceed informa pauperis is GRANTED; that Plaintiffs Complaints with the docket numbers Civ. No. 18-479, Civ. No. 18-644, and Civ. 18-509, are DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave to file an amended com plaint 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; that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of the Opinion and Order to Plaintiff by regular mail and by certified mail return receipt (7012-3050-0001-0972-7327). Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 3/22/2018. (JB, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ABDUL-RAHMAN MATEEN
SHABAZZ,
Plainttf/
Civil Action No.
18-479 (JMV) (CLW)
v.
OPINON & ORDER
STEPHEN S. CRAWFORD,
MICHAEL CHO, and LEXXI MACK,
Defendants.
ABDUL-RAHMAN MATEEN
SHABAZZ,
Plaintiff
Civil Action No.
18-644 (JMV) (CLW)
v.
OPINON & ORDER
BRIAN T. STEVENS,
Defendant.
ABDUL-RAHMAN MATEEN
SHABAZZ,
Plaintijj
Civil Action No.
18-509 (JMV) (CLW)
V.
OPINION & ORDER
STEPHEN S. CRAWFORD,
MICHAEL CR0, and LEXXI MACK,
Defendants.
John Michael Vazcjuez, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff seeks to bring these three actions in forma patiperis pursuant to 28 U. S.C.
§ 1915.
D.E. 1.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s applications to proceed
in forma pauperis but the three Complaints are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28
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 informapauperis without prepayment of fees
and costs.2
However, when allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pattperis, 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 maybe 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).
Unless specified, all references to “D.E. 1” are to the Complaints filed on all three docket
numbers.
2
While Plaintiff did fill out the required informapattperis fonns on Docket Nos. 18-479 and 1$509, the same paperwork is not included in the application on Docket No. 18-644. Instead,
Docket No. 18-644 includes an affidavit of “Billy G. Asemani,” identified as “the affiant/pro se
plaintiff herein,” and includes inmate account statements showing a fund balance of S0.00 for
Billy G. Asemani. It is not clear to the Court if Plaintiff and Asemani are one in the same, as
there is no explanation for the discrepancy.
2
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 Coip. v. Twonthly, 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.” Ash croft e. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because Plaintiff is proceedingpro se, the Court construes the pleadings
liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than those filed by attorneys. Homes v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
assertions’ or
“The Court need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiffs ‘bald
‘legal conclusions.” D’Agostmno 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 Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages under a “claim of commercial lien” of his
own design.
See D.E. 1, documents titled “Affidavit of Obligation Claim of Commercial Lien.”
Plaintiff states in the “statement of claim” on all three Complaints that the Defendant is “in
Default and Dishonor due to his acquiescence of the Private Administrative Procedure I have
completed via Notary Protest.” See, e.g., D.E. 1, Docket No. 12-644, at pg. 4. Plaintiff mailed
what he titles “NOTICE TO SETOFF ACCOUNTS, REQUEST REGARDING A
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT” to Defendant Brian Stevens, and Defendant Stephen S.
Crawford. See D.E. 1. Plaintiff does specify dates that he sent these mailings, and several
subsequent mailings he sent after receiving no response from Defendants, as well as his demand
of several million dollars in damages from each of the named Defendants. However, the legal
basis under which Plaintiff is proceeding is entirely unclear. The Court does not know why,
legally, Defendants owe anything to Plaintiff.
3
“Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case if it satisfies federal question
jurisdiction under 2$ U.S.C.
§ 1331, or diversity jurisdiction under 2$ U.S.C. § 1332.” Hines v.
In’ington Coimseting 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 Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S.
677, 706 (2006) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. $04, 808 (1986)). To
establish diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), “the party asserting jurisdiction
must show that there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties” as well as an amount
in controversy exceeding the statutory threshold. Schnetler ex ret Sch netter 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. The Complaint does not
cite to any federal statute, and, 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.
The Complaints do appear to establish diversity jurisdiction. According to the Complaints,
Plaintiff lives in New Jersey. The various Defendants live in Virginia and Michigan. Defendants
in cases Docket. No. 18-479 and 18-509 are all Virginia citizens. The Defendant in Docket No.
18-644 is a citizen of Michigan. Thus, it appears there is diversity of citizenship in all three cases.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 (stating that diversity of citizenship requires plaintiffs and defendants to be
4
citizens of different states). Plaintiff claims damages of $2,722,906 in the Complaint filed on
Docket No. 18-644, $3,606,680 in the Complaint filed on Docket No. 18-479, and $8,618,688 in
the Complaint filed on Docket No. 18-509. These damage amounts satisfy the $75,000 amount in
controversy requirement of 2$ U.S .C.
§ 1332(a).
However, even construed liberally, the Court cannot determine any viable causes of action
in the Complaints. The Complaints do not refer to any specific cause of action, other than on the
Civil Cover Sheet “negotiable instrument” is checked as the type of case. Plaintiff purports to
annex different documents to the Complaint and to show the various mailings he sent to
Defendants, but no such documents are attached. Only the statement of claim for the Complaint
on Docket No. 18-644 contains an indication as to what Plaintiff is describing; there he says the
“Private Administrative Procedure” he instituted “stems from a presentment I made to the
defendant for the balance of my wife’s car buyout agreement.” See D.E. 1, Docket No. 18-644 at
pg. 4. Plaintiff then attempts to describe the debt, but then attributes the debt to Defendant, who
purportedly works for Mercedes Benz, and then calculates the “commercial penalty” by using
proverbs from the Bible.3 Therefore, Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead any cause of action and his
three Complaints are 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
Assuming that the alleged cause of action or actions relate to an automobile payment or
“buyout” agreement, Plaintiff should also indicate in his amended complaints, if he files them,
the basis he is using to calculate his alleged damages. It seems unlikely that a single “buyout’
agreement for an automobile would result in damages totaling over $10 million.
5
undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the non-moving party or (b) the amendment
would be futile. Adams v. Gould, Inc., 739 f.2d 858, 864 (3d Cir. 1984). At this point, the Court
cannot conclude that Plaintiffs claims are futile primarily because the Court cannot detennine
Plaintiffs claims. Therefore, the Court shall provide Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended
complaint4 that cures the deficiencies set forth herein. If Plaintiff does not submit an amended
complaint curing these deficiencies within thirty days, the dismissal will then be with prejudice.
A dismissal with prejudice means that Plaintiff will be precluded from filing any future suit
against Defendant concerning the allegations in the complaint.
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 22nd day of March, 201$,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed informapauperis is GRANTED; and
it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaints with the docket numbers Civ. No. 18-479, Civ.
No. 18-644, and Civ. 18-509, 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.
6
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of the Opinion and Order to Plaintiff
by regular mail and by certified mail return receipt.
John
7
ichael Vazquez,J.’.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?