Filing 3


Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MRS. KUMUDINI M. KELSEY, Plaintiff, FILED . CIVIL ACTION OCT ~ 8 2017 v. KATE BARi\MAN, Clerk By_._,..,;..,__Dep. Clerk NO. 17-4505 MUHLENBERG COLLEGE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM STENGEL, Ch. J. OCTOBER \1, 2017 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. I. FACTS 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. II. 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). III. DISCUSSION 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. 2 IV. CONCLUSION 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. 3

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?