DE MORAES v. ALEMAN
1:24-cv-00271
M.D.N.C.May 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Vanuzia de Moraes filed a pro se complaint against Simon Mayo Aleman and Amayra Fonz Tello in the Middle District of North Carolina, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis.
- De Moraes alleged a range of wrongs including fraud, conspiracy, domestic violence, racketeering, and emotional distress arising from personal and business relationships with Aleman (her ex-husband) and Tello (his alleged mistress).
- She claimed significant financial loss and personal harm, requesting $1 million in compensatory damages from each Defendant.
- The complaint contained rambling, largely unsupported allegations, lacked clear factual or legal bases, and was supported by a variety of photographs and handwritten annotations.
- The court reviewed the claims for frivolity, adequacy of pleadings, and federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The complaint failed to allege federal question or diversity jurisdiction, and all alleged events took place in the Western District of North Carolina, making venue improper in the Middle District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction | Case involves fraud, conspiracy, and civil injury | Not stated (no appearance) | No federal question or diversity shown |
| Sufficiency of claim | Alleged a series of harms by Defendants | Not stated | Fails to state a plausible claim |
| Venue | Filed in Middle District of North Carolina | Not stated | Venue improper; events in Western District |
| In forma pauperis application | Requested IFP status due to indigency | Not contested | IFP granted for entry of order only |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defining a frivolous complaint as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for facial plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requirement of factual allegations to state a plausible claim)
- Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 327 (1895) (presumption that a federal court lacks jurisdiction unless demonstrated otherwise)
- Bowman v. White, 388 F.2d 756 (4th Cir. 1968) (federal courts' limited jurisdiction and who bears the burden to establish it)