Kenney v. Bates, 0:12-cv-01279

Plaintiff Anthony Kenney filed an application to proceed IFP in a civil action captioned against multiple defendants in the District of Minnesota.
The court recommends denying the IFP application and summarily dismissing the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff’s complaint consists of largely unintelligible, sparse allegations about arbitration and National Arbitration Forum matters.
The complaint fails to allege any specific acts or omissions by any defendant that would violate a cognizable legal theory.
The court applies the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and finds the allegations vague, conclusory, and not enough to state a claim.
Several defendants are not even identified in the substantive allegations, and the pleading history notes possible prior litigation by Kenney.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted.	Kenney asserts some rights under Title IV claims and seeks relief related to arbitration matters.	Defendants argue the complaint contains no actionable facts or plausible claims.	Complaint fails to state a claim; IFP denied.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible on its face)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient without factual support)
Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard for frivolous or failure-to-state claims under §1915)
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2004) (facts must be clearly alleged; court not required to assume unpled facts)