United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
M. VIRDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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
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.
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:
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
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)).
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).
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).
instant case, no viable claim is suggested by the sparse
Rules of Civil ...