ITIOWE v. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 11 , 20 & 27 Defendants Motions to Dismiss; Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint; If Plaintiff fails to amend her Complaint within 45 days of the date of the entry of this Memorandum Order, the Complaint will be dism issed with prejudice and the matter will be closed; Plaintiffs cross-motion to amend her Complaint 12 and motions requesting expedited handling 34 , 43 , 44 are DENIED moot. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 9/14/2015. (eaj) Modified on 9/14/2015 (eaj, ).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHRISTIANA ITIOWE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 14-6342 (MAS) (TJB)
v.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on several motions. Defendants the City of Trenton,
City of Trenton Police Department, and City of Trenton Municipal Court (collectively, "Trenton
Defendants"); Defendants the State of New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Human Services,
Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Trenton Psychiatric Hospital, and the Division
of Civil Rights (collectively, "State Defendants"); and Defendants United States Government,
House of Representatives, Federal District Court of New Jersey - Trenton, Third Circuit Court
Executive Office, USCIS Agency Director, Department of Homeland Security, United States
Department of Justice, and Supreme Court of Washington DC (collectively, "Federal Defendants")
filed separate motions to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Christiana Iti owe' s ("Plaintiff') Complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 (ECF Nos. 11,
20, 27.) Plaintiff filed a cross-motion to amend her Complaint (ECF No. 12) and filed three
motions requesting expedited handling (ECF Nos. 34, 43, 44).

1

Defendant Superior Court of New Jersey is the only defendant that has not moved to dismiss the
Complaint.

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed an incomprehensible Complaint against numerous
federal, state, and local government entities alleging the "continuous violations of [her] civil
rights." (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1.) In her Complaint, Plaintiff additionally alleges a range of causes
of action, including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and intimidation. Plaintiffs allegations appear to stem from the "mishandling" of two
prior cases before the Honorable Joel A. Pisano, Jtiowe v. Robert Wood Johnson University

Hospital Hamilton, et al., No. 12-6977, and Jtiowe v. The Trentonian, et al., No. 13-5779. Both
actions were dismissed, and the Third Circuit either affirmed or dismissed Plaintiffs appeals.
Plaintiff now seeks $500 billion in alleged damages sustained for her severe emotional trauma.
Plaintiff has also filed a cross-motion to amend her Complaint, seeking to correct clerical typos
and some of the defendants' addresses. (ECF No. 12.) Additionally, since filing the Complaint,
Plaintiff has filed numerous items of correspondence with this Court that are as incomprehensible
as Plaintiffs Complaint. (ECF Nos. 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42.)
Rule 8(a)(2) "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and
the grounds on which it rests." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In determining the sufficiency of a prose complaint,
the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). Moreover, "a prose complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson, 551 U.S. at
94. However, even a prose pleading is required to "set forth sufficient information to outline the
elements of [a] claim or to permit inferences to be drawn that these elements exist." Kost v.

Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). The Court need not, however, credit a pro se

2

plaintiffs "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d
902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). "Thus, a pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim
only if the allegations set forth by plaintiff cannot be construed as supplying facts in support of a
claim, which would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Rhett v. NJ State Superior Court, No. 07-2303,
2007 WL 1791264, at *2 (D.N.J. June 19, 2007) ajf'd, 260 F. App'x 513 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing
Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981)).

When a complaint is subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, amendment should be permitted
unless it is prejudicial or futile. Phillips v. Cnty. ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008).
'"Futility' means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted." Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000). The futility of an
amendment is assessed under the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6); therefore, a plaintiff must be
allowed to amend a complaint subject to such a dismissal "unless the amendment would not cure
the deficiency." Id.
Here, Plaintiffs rambling pleadings contain mostly unintelligible allegations against
sixteen different defendants. Plaintiff only offers broad labels and conclusions and does not
provide any facts to support her claims. Additionally, Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint
does not clarify the allegations against any of the defendants but only addresses clerical changes
and typos. Plaintiffs Complaint does not provide Defendants with fair notice of what the claim is
or on what factual grounds it is based. Further, based on the information in Plaintiffs Complaint,
the Court cannot determine if proper subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) mandates that Plaintiffs Complaint set forth (1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, and (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because Plaintiffs Complaint

3

does not comply with either of Rule 8(a)'s requirements, Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed. The
Complaint, however, will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint
adhering to Rule 8(a) pleading requirements.
Accordingly, IT IS, on this
1.

;t/~ of September 2015, ORDERED that:

Trenton Defendants, State Defendants, and Federal Defendants' motions to dismiss

(ECF Nos. 11, 20, 27) are GRANTED;
2.

Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of an amended

complaint adhering to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)2;
3.

If Plaintiff fails to amend her Complaint within 45 days of the date of the entry of

this Memorandum Order, the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice and the matter will be
closed;
4.

Plaintiffs cross-motion to amend her Complaint (ECF No. 12) and motions

requesting expedited handling (ECF Nos. 34, 43, 44) are DENIED as moot; and

5.

The Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Order upon Plaintiff.

M~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

In drafting her amended complaint, Plaintiff is advised to adhere to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a), which requires (1) "a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the
court's jurisdiction depends," (2) "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief," and (3) "a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." Plaintiffs
failure to do so will result in dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice.
4