von Fox v. Seaton Law Firm
2:16-cv-00182
| D.S.C. | Feb 16, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Glynndeavin von Fox, pro se, filed multiple civil actions in this district, including this case against Seaton Law Firm, Grover Seaton, BJ Bilton, and Rachel McKain.
- Plaintiff move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) was filed, and the magistrate judge was assigned to review the complaint under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.).
- The magistrate judge recommended denying IFP status and summarily dismissing the case for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and frivolity, among other deficiencies.
- Plaintiff’s allegations concern a Freedom of Choice-era style dispute with a private law firm; the court found no state action and no federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
- The court analyzed the Plaintiff’s financial disclosures and found the poverty assertion untrue, recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to qualify for IFP.
- The Recommendation notes potential dismissals may be without prejudice and cites cases addressing false IFP applications and lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff may proceed IFP | Von Fox claims indigence and seeks to avoid filing fees | Defendant argues indicia show Plaintiff can pay and IFP should be denied | IFP denied; case dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists | Updates claim under federal jurisdiction via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | No federal question or complete diversity; private conduct not state action | No basis for federal jurisdiction; dismissal recommended |
| Whether the complaint states a cognizable claim | Alleges issues with lawyers and paralegal, jurisdictional concerns | Claims are frivolous and not cognizable; private conduct not actionable under § 1983 | Complaint lacks plausible federal claims; frivolous and dismissed |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists for possible state tort claims | Seeks damages possibly arising under state law | All parties appear to be South Carolina citizens; diversity not established | Diversity lacking; state-law claims are not within federal jurisdiction |
| Disposition of the IFP motion and case | Requests court action against defendants and various remedies | Requests relief is improper in federal court; not actionable | Dismissal without prejudice; no service of process issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings; basic due process standard)
- Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1980) (pro se pleadings receive liberal construction)
- Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir. 1985) (court may not rewrite pleadings to conjure new claims)
- Weller v. Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990) (liberal construction limits; cannot ignore clear pleading defects)
- Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1948) (poverty showing for IFP does not require absolute destitution)
- In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 1998) (courts have authority to examine basis for jurisdiction and dismiss if none)
- Thomas v. GMAC, 288 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 2002) (allegation of poverty false; dismissal appropriate)
- Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427 (4th Cir. 2014) (proper jurisdiction and claims must be found within federal authority)
- DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499 (4th Cir. 1999) (private conduct generally not state action under § 1983)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1999) (state action concepts limit liability under private conduct)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1992) (mandatory dismissal where poverty allegation untrue)
- Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009) (judicial notice on public records; supports IFP analysis)
- Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1989) (judicial notice of court records relevant to standing)