Dandy v. Munro Muffler Corp.
1:10-cv-00291
D.R.I.Dec 7, 2010Background
- Dandy filed a pro se complaint naming Monro Muffler Corporation et al. as defendants in the District of Rhode Island; he submitted IFP and the $350 filing fee, which was granted
- Court must screen IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for frivolity or failure to state a claim
- Complaint is confusing and conclusory, lacking fair notice of claims and basis for jurisdiction
- Plaintiff alleges constitutional rights, ADA disability status, and false statements but does not specify how defendants violated these
- This is one of four similar pro se filings by Dandy in July 2010 that were summarily dismissed under § 1915(e)
- Court recommends dismissing the complaint without prejudice
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a claim under § 1915(e)(2) | Dandy asserts federal statutes, constitutional rights, ADA status, and false statements by defendants | Complaint is too vague and fails to state a viable legal claim | Dismissal warranted; no viable claim stated |
| Whether the complaint complies with Rule 8 notice requirements | Plaintiff believes he pleaded adequate facts supporting his claims | Complaint is deficient in stating jurisdiction and claims | Dismissal warranted for failure to provide short, plain statement of grounds for jurisdiction and claim |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction and properly identifies the legal bases for relief | Plaintiff cites statutes but does not connect them to defendants or conduct | Statutes cited are misapplied or undefined with respect to defendants’ actions | Dismissal warranted due to lack of clear jurisdictional basis |
| Whether the action should be dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim | Plaintiff asserts rights and government action against employer/management | Claims lack arguable basis in law or fact | Dismissal without prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) |
| Whether dismissal should be without prejudice given prior similar suits | (not explicitly stated) | Prior suits have been summarily dismissed; this one similarly defective | Dismissal without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous claims lack basis in law or fact)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (liberal process for pro se pleading but not to cure defects)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, 96 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 1996) (to state a claim, plaintiff must allege facts showing plausible entitlement to relief)