KELSEY v. MUHLENBERG COLLEGE
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 10/17/17. 10/18/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF.(kw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MRS. KUMUDINI M. KELSEY,
OCT ~ 8 2017
KATE BARi\MAN, Clerk
STENGEL, Ch. J.
Plaintiff Kumudini M. Kelsey brings this civil action against Muhlenberg College based
on allegations that the college is interfering with a marriage she entered into via telepathy.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss her complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that she married Jason Kelsey, a professor at Muhlenberg College, "by
proxy," and "by telepathy." She claims that, since 2004, Muhlenberg College has been
interfering with her marriage by, among other things, asking her husband not to associate with
her and directing him to "become intimately involved with two of his coworkers." (Compl. at 3.)
She also alleges that Muhlenberg College banned her from the campus and from communicating
with faculty without giving a valid reason. Plaintiff notes that she does not mind the ban "except
that other people impersonate [her] and spread false rumors about [her]." (Id. at 3.) She brings
this lawsuit, apparently raising claims for loss of consortium.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted because it appears that she is
incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. As plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires the Court to dismiss the complaint if it is
frivolous. 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). It is legally baseless if "based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory," Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995), and
factually baseless "when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Furthermore, "[i]fthe court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff's allegations that the defendant is interfering with a marriage entered into "by
proxy" and "by telepathy" reflects that her claims are not grounded in reality. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that this lawsuit is factually and legally baseless. However, even if plaintiff's
claims were not factually baseless, there is no apparent basis for a claim within this Court's
jurisdiction. The complaint is best construed as raising tort claims under state law. However,
the Court lacks jurisdiction over those claims because it is apparent from the complaint that the
parties are not diverse. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (granting district court jurisdiction over a case
in which "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between ... citizens of different States."). Accordingly, there are no legal or
jurisdictional grounds for this lawsuit to proceed in this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff will not
be given leave to amend because amendment would be futile. An appropriate order follows,
which shall be docketed separately.
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?