BRAUN v. STOUT
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 6/17/2013. 6/18/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(sg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION
BRENDA LEE BRAUN
v.
NO. 13-3189
PHILLIP STOUT
MEMORANDUM
SANCHEZ, J.
JUNE
, 2013
Brenda Lee Braun filed this pro se civil action against
Phillip Stout, seeking repayment of money that she allegedly
loaned to him.
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis.
For the following reasons, the Court will grant plaintiff leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss her complaint.
I.
FACTS
Plaintiff alleges that she loaned the defendant money to
purchase a variety of items in October and November of 2012.
The
defendant allegedly promised to pay her back when he got a job.
However, although defendant got a job in December, he refused to
pay plaintiff back.
She also alleges that the defendant
threatened to beat her if she did not vote the way that he told
her to vote, and that he "bad-mouthed" her.
Accordingly,
plaintiff initiated this action seeking repayment and a nocontact order.
An attachment to the complaint titled
"transactions for Phillip Stout on my Visa for Oct. & Nov. 2012,"
reflects that plaintiff loaned the defendant $541.46.
Plaintiff previously filed the same claims against Stout in
the District of Delaware in March of 2013, when she lived in
1
Delaware.
Braun v. stout, Civ. A. No. 13-486 (D. Del.).
That action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because the parties were not diverse and because plaintiff sought
$540.91 in damages.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff refiled her
complaint in this district after moving to Pennsylvania.
Her
forma pauperis application in this action likewise reflects her
belief that Stout owes her $540.91. 1
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because she has satisfied the requirements set out in 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
Accordingly, 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 against a defendant who is immune.
Whether a
complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915{e) is governed by
the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), see Tourscher v. McCullough,
184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true. to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face,lI
(2009)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(quotations omitted).
Furthermore, "[i]f the court
lAlthough the instant action seeks
loans as the earlier-filed action, the
amount that plaintiff allegedly loaned
rather than $540.91, based on the list
to her complaint.
2
repayment for the same
Court has calculated the
to Stout to be $541.46,
of transactions attached
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
the court must dismiss the action."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3).
III. DISCUSSION
In her complaint, plaintiff indicates that she is invoking
this Court's federal question jurisdiction.
However, nothing in
plaintiff's complaint sets forth a basis for a federal claim.
To
the contrary, it appears that she is raising claims under state
tort law.
However, there is no basis for jurisdiction over those
claims.
Diversity jurisdiction requires diversity of citizenship
among the parties and that the amount in controversy exceed
$75,000.
See 28 U.S.C.
§
1332(a).
Although it appears that the
parties are diverse, it is clear to a legal certainty that the
amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional
threshold.
See Spectacor Mgmt. Grp. v. Brown, 131 F.3d 120, 122
(3d Cir. 1997)
("As a general rule,
[the amount in controversy]
is determined from the good faith allegations appearing on the
face of the complaint.").
A district court should ordinarily allow a pro se plaintiff
to amend her complaint, unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile.
See Grayson v. Mayyiew State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 113-14
(3d Cir. 2002).
Here, amendment would be futile because it is
apparent that this case concerns matters of state law, but that
there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss
3
plaintiff's complaint.
The dismissal is without prejudice to
plaintiff's ability to pursue her claims in state court.
appropriate order follows.
4
An
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?