KENT v. HANDCHIN et al

Filing 5

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
CIVIL ACTION

MARILYN KENT
v.

NO. 12-0071

MR. JOHN HANDCHIN, et al.
MEMORANDUM

, 2012

MARCH

SANCHEZ, J.

Marilyn Kent brought this action against John and Chris
Handchin.

She seeks to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court

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
immune.

A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis

either in law or in fact."
325 (1989).

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
the action."

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

Kent~s

belief

that the defendants, her landlords, committed various crimes
against her.

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

1

"extortion," the claims are legally baseless.
Adams, 168 F.3d 1036, 1038 (7th Cir. 1999)

See Chapa v.

("Criminal statutes,

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
(1973)

("[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.
1331.

§

Nor is there any basis for diversity jurisdiction, as the

complaint indicates that Kent and the defendants are all citizens
of Pennsylvania.

See 28 U.S.C.

§

1332.

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).
order follows.

2

An appropriate