Adefumi v. Prosper
368 F. Supp. 3d 811
| E.D. Pa. | 2019Background
- In 2015 Adefumi sued Dr. Sharon Lim alleging inappropriate touching; Rebecca Prosper, a City Law Department attorney, represented Lim.
- During that litigation Adefumi accused Prosper of falsely claiming he delivered a court notice to Dr. Lim; the presiding judge told him any claim against Prosper had to be brought in a separate action.
- Judge Ditter granted summary judgment for Dr. Lim in July 2018; Adefumi later filed motions reiterating complaints about Prosper and was told to sue separately if he wished to challenge her conduct.
- In December 2018 Adefumi filed Civ. A. No. 18-5341 against Prosper; the court dismissed it with prejudice for failure to state a federal claim and noted lack of jurisdiction for any state claims.
- After an unsuccessful Rule 60(b) request and a dismissed appeal, Adefumi filed the instant, duplicative lawsuit in March 2019 again alleging Prosper misrepresented facts to the court and seeking $6,000.
- The district court granted in forma pauperis status but dismissed the Complaint with prejudice as duplicative and for failure to state a claim; amendment was denied as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new suit is duplicative/malicious | Adefumi contends Prosper lied about him delivering a court notice and harmed him; seeks recovery anew | Prosper implicitly argues prior adjudication and procedural rules require separate action and prior dismissal bars relitigation | Court: Complaint is duplicative of Civ. A. No. 18-5341 and constitutes improperly repeated litigation; dismiss under §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) |
| Whether Complaint states a federal claim under §1983 or other statute | Adefumi alleges constitutional violations (mentions Amendments 6 and 7) and injury from reputational falsehoods | Prosper argues no plausible facts show state action or constitutional violation; previous dismissal noted lack of federal claim | Court: Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim; dismiss under §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Adefumi did not present additional factual basis for relief | Prosper opposes because prior dismissal was on merits and further amendment would be futile | Court: Denies leave to amend as futile |
| Whether in forma pauperis filing requires screening/dismissal | Adefumi sought IFP to proceed despite prior filings | N/A (screening mandated by statute) | Court: Grants IFP but applies §1915 screening and dismisses accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires factual plausibility)
- Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080 (3d Cir. 1995) (maliciousness inquiry examines plaintiff's subjective intent to vex or harass)
- Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) (district courts may dismiss or stay duplicative federal suits)
- Higgs v. Attorney General, 655 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2011) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)