KENT v. HANDCHIN et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINIONSIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 3/9/12. 3/9/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO KENT.(rf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MR. JOHN HANDCHIN, et al.
Marilyn Kent brought this action against John and Chris
She seeks to proceed in forma pauperis.
will grant Kent leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but will
dismiss her complaint for the following reasons.
As Kent is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) (2) (B) applies.
That provision requires the Court to
dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
Furthermore, "[i]f the court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3).
Although it is not entirely clear, the complaint appears to
be based on a landlord-tenant dispute as well as
that the defendants, her landlords, committed various crimes
To the extent Kent's claims are based on the
defendants' alleged violations of federal criminal laws by
committing "fraud," "bullying," "cruelty to animals" and
"extortion," the claims are legally baseless.
Adams, 168 F.3d 1036, 1038 (7th Cir. 1999)
See Chapa v.
which express prohibitions rather than personal entitlements and
specify a particular remedy other than civil litigation, are
. poor candidates for the imputation of private rights of
action."); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619
("[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable
interest in the prosecution or rionprosecution of another.").
Kent's remaining claims based on her disputes with her landlords
arise under state laws of contract, property, and possibly torts,
so there is no basis for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Nor is there any basis for diversity jurisdiction, as the
complaint indicates that Kent and the defendants are all citizens
See 28 U.S.C.
Kent should not be surprised by the dismissal of her
complaint given the dismissal of numerous other lawsuits that she
filed in this Court on the same basis.
(See E.D. Pa. Civ. A.
Nos. 11-2690, 11-7639, 11-7790, 11-7791, 11-7862, 11-7863, 117878 & 11-7925.)
The Court will not provide Kent with leave to
amend because amendment would be futile.
See Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002).
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?