United States District Court, D. New Jersey
July 6, 2005.
VAN DOUGLAS, Plaintiff,
SGT. MULLER, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARY COOPER, District Judge
THIS MATTER ARISES on the in-forma-pauperis application
("application") of a non-prisoner plaintiff who appears pro
se. (Applic.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must address
the application before reviewing the complaint's sufficiency.
See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1990).
The Court intends to grant the application.
THIS IS an action against defendants listed as "Sgt. Muller &
R. Maruco," and "Alice & Doscore Ware." (Compl.) The Court must
(1) screen a complaint accompanying an application before it is
docketed, and (2) dismiss it sua sponte if it "(i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief."
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Mariani v. United States, 212 F.3d 761,
769 (3d Cir. 2000).
THE COMPLAINT states in full the following:
Jurisdiction: Civil law suit.
Cause of Action: false arrest, incarcerated for 3
mos., lost wages & lost [sic] of apartment.
(Compl.) THE COMPLAINT fails to allege (1) the specific federal law
forming the basis for jurisdiction, (2) dates for the occurrences
underlying the purported causes of action, or (3) any details as
to those occurrences. See Chatman v. Allegheny Cty., No.
052-050, slip op. at 3 (3d Cir. June 28, 2005) (stating district
court properly dismissed complaint for same). The mere
possibility of federal issues being involved will not give rise
to federal jurisdiction. See Fran. Tax Bd. v. Constr. Lab.
Vac. Tr., 463 U.S. 1
, 9-12 (1983).
THE COURT cannot discern whether federal law "creates the
cause of action" as to these purported claims. Id. at 27-28.
See Blum v. Seiler Corp., No. 92-2317, 1992 WL 177021, at *2
(E.D. Pa. July 17, 1992) (granting motion to dismiss because
plaintiff failed to clarify basis for federal jurisdiction). The
Court concludes the complaint fails to give "fair notice of what
the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,"
and thus fails to conform to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).*fn1 The complaint will be dismissed
because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). The Court will
issue an appropriate order and judgment.