DUGLAS v. LEVIN ALVIN AND SONS, INC. et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 9/19/2017. 9/20/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

LOLITA DUGLAS

v.
MAXWELL REALTY CO., INC.

NO. 17-4068

LOLITA DUGLAS

CIVIL ACTION

v.
N0.17-4089

LEVIN ALVIN AND SONS, INC.
MS.DAWN
MEMORANDUM

SEPTEMBER!

PRATTER,J.

?, 2017

Plaintiff Lolita Duglas is looking for a furnished apartment in South Philadelphia. She
contacted Maxwell Realty Co. and Levin Alvin and Sons, Inc. about two apartments, but did not
hear back from them. Accordingly, she filed two lawsuits with the Court in which she asks the
Court to help her find an apartment; she seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in both
lawsuits.
Ms. Duglas' s motions to proceed in forma pauper is are granted because it appears that
she is incapable of prepaying the fees required to commence a civil action.
However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) require the Court to dismiss the complaint
if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact," Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and is legally baseless if
it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080,
1085 (3d Cir. 1995). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must contain

1

"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). "[M]ere conclusory
statements[] do not suffice." Id.
Ms. Duglas is proceeding prose, and for that reason the Court construes her allegations
liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). "[T]his Court's Article III
mandate is limited to resolution of legal cases and controversies." Bey v. Hillside Twp. Mun.

Court, No. CIV.A. 11-7343 RBK, 2012 WL 714575, at *7 (D.N.J. Mar. 5, 2012). Ms. Duglas
does not appear to be bringing a legal dispute before the Court. Rather, it appears that she would
like the Court to assist her in finding a living space. That is not something the Court is capable
of doing.
To the extent Ms. Duglas is raising any legal claims based on the fact that she has not heard
back from realtors from whom she would like to rent an apartment, she has no legal basis for a
claim. The Court has already explained to Ms. Duglas that her allegations do not give rise to a
lawsuit. See Duglas v. Maxwell Realty Co., Inc., E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 17-2391. If Ms. Duglas
continues to file similar lawsuits, she is on notice that the Court may prevent her from filing in
the future.
The Court will dismiss Ms. Duglas's complaints with prejudice because amendment would
be futile. Ms. Duglas shall not file any additional requests with this Court for an apartment. An
appropriate order follows, which shall be docketed separately.

2