Brissett et al v. Craven County et al

Filing 4

Order Dismissing Case - The court GRANTS Brissett's application to proceed in forma pauperis, PERMITS the filing of the complaint, and DISMISSES the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/26/2014. (Tripp, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:14-CV-179-D

COURTNEY T. BRISSETT,
and LADWIN BRISSETT,
Plaintiffs,

v.
CRAVEN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On September 19, 2014, Courtney T. Brissett and Ladwin Brissett ("Brissett" or "plaintiffs"),
appearing pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S. C. § 1915, which permits
an indigent litigant to commence suit in federal court without paying administration costs associated
with such proceedings [D .E. 1]. The court grants the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, permits
the filing of the complaint, but dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
When a litigant seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court shall dismiss the case if
the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A case is frivolous if"it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). "Legally frivolous claims are
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and include claims of infringement of a legal interest
which clearly does not exist." Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted).
Factually frivolous claims lack an "arguable basis" in fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.

The standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of the pleading is flexible, and a pro se
complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quotation
omitted). Erickson, however, does not undermine the "requirement that a pleading contain 'more
than labels and conclusions."' Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 304 n.5 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting
BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007)); seeAshcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,677-80
(2009); Coleman v. Md. Ct. of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd, 132 S. Ct. 1327
(2012); Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2009);
Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiffs' latest complaint is part of a series of failed legal actions arising from their
disappointment over their investment in 2006 in real estate in Craven County, North Carolina. See
Brissett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.4: 13-CV-243-D, [D.E. 55] 1 n.1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2014)
(unpublished) (collecting cases). In their latest complaint, plaintiffs have added defendants.
Nonetheless, plaintiffs again have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See id.

1-4.
In sum, the court GRANTS Brissett's application to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 1],
PERMITS the filing of the complaint, and DISMISSES the complaint [D.E. 1-1] for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED. This _1._b_ day of September 2014.

2