Yarid v. Brennan

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 06/10/2015. Copy mailed to plaintiff on 6/10/15.(tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

GEORGE YARID,

Plaintiff,

V,

Civil Action No. 3:15cv326

SHONBRENNON,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff George Yarid's Motion for Leave to

VxQQQQd in FormaPauperis. (ECFNo. 1.) Upon due consideration of Yarid's affidavit in

support ofhis request and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)/ the Court will grant the Motion and allow
Yarid to proceed in this casewithout paynaent of the Court's filing fee. The Court will direct the
Clerk to file the Complaint. (ECFNo. 1-1.)

' The statute reads, in pertinent part:
(a)(1) [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement,
prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or
appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who
submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses

that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit
shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the
person is entitled to redress.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (2015).

A.

Preliminary Review

This matter is also before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(e)(2)

("Section 1915(e)(2)").^ Section 1915(e)(2) "Us designed largely to discourage the filing of, and
waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generallydo
not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.'" McLean v. United States^ 566 F.3d 391, 399

(4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams^ 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The Court must sua
sponte dismiss a claim filed informa pauperis under Section 1915(e)(2) if the action is frivolous
or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Michau v. Charleston

Cnty, S.C, 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although the word
"prisoner" is occasionally used throughout 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must screen any

complaint filed by a plaintiff, whether a prisoner or not, when he or she files informa pauperis.
See Michau, 434 F.3d at 728 (affirming the district court's dismissal of non-prisoner's complaint,
filed informa pauperis, pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2) because the section "governs [informa
pauperise filings in addition to complaints filed by prisoners").

^The statute reads, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,
the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that:
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal—

(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2015).

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim

uponwhich reliefmay be granted. The Court will dismiss Yarid's Complaint without prejudice.
B.

Standard of Review

"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint;

importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the
applicability of defenses." Republican Party ofN.C. v. Martin^ 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir.
1992) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356

(1990)). In consideringa motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiffs well-pleaded
allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7F.3dll30,1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin^
980 F.2dat952.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of
what the .,. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (omission in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)),

However, plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and
conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," Id. (citations

omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009), A plaintiff must assert not just

speculative or conceivable facts, but facts that state a plausible claim on the face of a complaint.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly^ 550 U.S. at 556), In order for a

claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege facts

sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.^

324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193,213 (4th Cir.
2002); lodice v. UnitedStates, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)).
District courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Bracey v. Buchanan, 55

F. Supp. 2d 416,421 (E.D. Va. 1999). However, a pro se plaintiffmust nevertheless allegea
cause of action. Id. (citing Sado v. Leland Mem 7 Hosp., 933 F. Supp. 490,493 (D. Md. 1996).

The Court cannot act as a pro se litigant's "advocate and develop, sua sponte, statutory and
constitutional claims" that the litigant failed to raise on the face of the complaint. Newkirk v.

Circuit Court ofthe City ofHampton, No. 3:14cv372-HEH, 2014 WL 4072212, at *1 (E.D. Va.
Aug. 14,2014).
C.

Factual Allegations

Yarid filed a one-paragraph, hand-written complaint. (ECF No. 1-1.) He names Shon
Brennon as the defendant. {Id. at 1.) Yarid seeks a "court restraint [against Brennon] to stop and

cease making copies of [his] intellectual property on different internet sites." {Id.) He also asks
the Court to "extradite" Brennon for the case. {Id.) Yarid states such relief is needed "for [his]

intellectual property to be secure without property being stolen." {Id.)
D.

Analysis

Yarid's complaint contains deficiencies well beyond any plausibility analysis this Court
must undertake, Yarid alleges no violations of any specific statutory, common, or constitutional
law. Further, the Complaint contains no plausible facts from which the Court could discern such
a claim. Therefore, his Complaint fails to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). Therefore,

even construing iMs/ito se complaint liberally, Yarid has failed to state aclaim upon which
reliefcan be granted againstBrennon.'
D.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Yarid leave to proceed informa pauperis,

directs the Clerk to file the Complaint, and dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. (ECF
Nos. 1,1-1.) The Court grants Yarid leave to file an amended complaint. Should Yarid desire to

file an amended complaint, the Court orders him to do so within fourteen (14) days ofthe date of
entry hereof. Failure to comply strictly with the requirements ordered by the Court will result in
dismissal ofthis action. See Fed. R, Civ. P. 41(b).
An appropriate Order will follow.
/s/
M. Haimj

United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia

(Oj 2.015"

Itappears that Yarid has filed similar suits inthis Court, all of which were dismissed for

failure to state aclaim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2) See
Yarid V. Harman et al., No. 3:14cvl 12-HEH (E.D. Va. Mar, 27, 2014) (order dismissing case)YaridV. Harman et al., No. 3:12cv237-JRS (E.D. Va. Oct. 9, 2012) (same); Yaridv. Gibson et'

al., No. 3:10cvl43-JRS (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2010) (same). Yarid's 2014 case included Brennon as
a defendant.