The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge
THE PLAINTIFF PRO SE applies for in-forma-pauperis relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("Application") in this action against the defendants, (1) Paramount Theater ("PMT"), (2) the City of Asbury Park, and (3) Gilbert Reed and Louis Jordan, who appear to be Asbury Park police officials. The Court will address the Application before reviewing the complaint's sufficiency. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990).
The plaintiff asserts that he (1) was last employed in June 2004, (2) has $5 in savings and received no income in the last twelve months, (3) owns nothing of value, and (4) is homeless. (App., at 1-2; Compl., at 9.) However, he asserts that he (1) is the sole proprietor of a business that was running at least through November 2004, (2) provides $58 a week to a daughter, (3) has brought an action in state court recently, and (4) owns a car. (App., at 2; Compl., at 1, 4, & 9 (stating he has a "car note").) He fails to explain (1) whether he receives any income from his business and, if not, why he is otherwise unemployed, (2) how he is able to provide $58 a week to support a child if he is without income or savings, (3) whether he paid a filing fee in any recent litigation and, if so, how he was able to do so, and (4) whether he owns a car.
The Court will deny the Application because the plaintiff fails to show entitlement to in-forma-pauperis relief. See Spence v. Cmty. Life Improv., No. 03-3406, 2003 WL 21500007, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2003); Daniels v. County of Media, No. 03-377, 2003 WL 21294910, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2003); White v. Carollo, No. 01-4553, 2001 WL 1159845, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2001). It is the plaintiff's burden to "provide the [Court] with the financial information it need[s] to make a determination as to whether he qualifie[s] for in forma pauperis status." Thompson v. Pisano, No. 06-1817, slip op. at 1 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2006) (dismissing appeal from order denying in-forma-pauperis application, as appellant "despite being informed of . . . deficiency, . . . took no action to rectify it"). If the plaintiff applies again for in-forma-pauperis relief, he should clarify (1) whether he receives any income from his business or any other source, (2) how he is able to support a child, (3) whether he paid a filing fee elsewhere, and (4) whether he owns a car or anything of value.
The Court may direct sua sponte that a complaint not be filed if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must construe a pro se complaint liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court also must "accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). But the Court need not credit a plaintiff's bald assertions or legal conclusions. Id.
The plaintiff seems to assert that (1) he is a promoter of events, (2) he contracted in July 2004 with PMT, a "privately owned" theater, to stage a "Hip Hop" and "youth empowerment event" in September or November 2004 to encourage young people to vote, (3) PMT failed to advertise the event, (4) he was advised two weeks before the event that he would be required to pay $25,000 in advance for more security and police presence, (5) Reed told him that if the event "proceeded without permission that anyone found on the [PMT] grounds [would] be arrested," and (6) PMT and the Asbury Park police cancelled the event when he refused to pay. The plaintiff apparently asserts a cause of action for breach of contract against PMT, and causes of action against all defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments for preventing the event. He also claims that similar events, such as a "rock festival," were permitted to pay for extra police presence after, rather than before, those events occurred.
The plaintiff, however, states that his effort "to recoup what was lost" due to the defendants' conduct: was prevented in Superior Court of Monmouth County NJ Special Civil Part on the ground that the defendants lied to the Judge by stating that the plaintiff is a corporation. Their devious tactics have prolonged the hardship of the plaintiff as the defendants lied to the court to secure a victory. The plaintiff's provable evidence was overlooked by the court. (Compl., at 4 (as stated in original); see id. at 5 (stating "defendants did not contests [sic] the allegations against them in court").) The plaintiff has brought two actions - one in April 2005 and one in February 2006 - against the defendants in New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County ("State Actions").*fn1
Thus, this federal action is barred in its entirety on several separate grounds.
I. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Court lacks jurisdiction here, as it appears that the plaintiff's claims were - or could have been - raised in the State Actions, from which he should have sought review through the state appellate process and, if warranted, certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. See D.C. Ct. of Apps. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923). A losing party may not "seek what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Thus:
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits District Courts from adjudicating actions in which the relief requested requires determining whether the state court's decision is wrong or voiding the state court's ruling. Stated another way, Rooker-Feldman does not allow a plaintiff to seek relief that, if granted, would prevent a state court from enforcing its orders.
McAllister v. Allegheny Cty. Family Div., 128 Fed.Appx. 901, 902 (3d Cir. 2005) (cites and quotes omitted). If the plaintiff has been aggrieved because "the defendants lied to the [state] court to secure a victory," and "evidence was overlooked by the [state] court," then the ...