Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leflore v. McNair

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

April 13, 2018

JOHN LEFLORE PLAINTIFF
v.
JAMEKA MCNAIR MARSHALL FISHER JOHN DAVIS CATHY SYKES DEFENDANTS

          ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          JANE M. VIRDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff, John Leflore's, Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis “IFP”. Doc. #2. Because the Court, as explained hereafter, finds that the original pleading in this matter is frivolous and fails to either assert a jurisdictional basis for this court to entertain the case or to otherwise state a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), the motion to proceed IFP will be held in abeyance for a period of (21) twenty-one days from the date hereof to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to successfully move to amend the original pleading so as to state a non-frivolous and cognizable cause of action over which this court has jurisdiction.

         Background

         On April 9, 2018, the pro se Plaintiff filed an initial pleading in this case asserting claims of civil rights violations against the Defendants. In connection therewith, Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed IFP.

         In support of the motion, the Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to relief in the amount of $100, 000, but, despite diligent effort, the undersigned can discern no coherent fact pattern, let alone a viable legal premise, upon which to found jurisdiction or any claim for relief. By way of explanation, the court has incorporated herein the totality of the narrative of Plaintiff's initial pleading:

         (Image Omitted)

         Doc. #1 at 3-4.

         Law and Analysis

         Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 states that a civil complaint “must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted the “short and plain statement requirement to mean that the complaint must provide the defendant [with] fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 335 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

         When considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The court, further, acknowledges its obligation to liberally construe the pleadings of a lay person, like the plaintiff, when they are proceeding in a case without benefit of counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). However, even then, “we disregard a complaint's unsupported legal conclusions, for a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice to state a plausible claim. Rather, a complaint must allege enough factual matter… to suggest the elements required for a claim.” Electrostim Med. Servs. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 614 Fed.Appx. 731, 736 (5th Cir. 2015)(emphasis added)(citation omitted)(quotation marks omitted)(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

         Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), should a plaintiff proceed in forma pauperis with a complaint that is frivolous or that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must dismiss the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it determines “from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987).

         In the instant case, no viable claim is suggested by the sparse facts alleged.

         Federal Rules of Civil ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.