United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MICHAEL VAZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint. See D.E. 10. On June 17, 2016, the Court
granted Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma
pauperis, but dismissed the Complaint without prejudice
for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 16-3057, D.E. 2.
Plaintiff then filed another Complaint concerning the same
subject matter under the above-captioned docket number,
16-04639. D.E. 1. On October 27, 2016, the Court again
dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint without prejudice for failure
to state a claim. D.E. 4. On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff
filed another complaint under another docket number, 16-9125,
which the Court dismissed and ordered that if Plaintiff chose
to file an amended complaint, he must do so under docket
number 16-0439 within thirty days. Docket No. 16-9125, D.E.
January 19, 2017, Plaintiff requested a one-month extension
of time to file an amended complaint, which the Court
granted. D.E. 8. Plaintiff indicated that the extension was
necessary so that he could retain counsel in this matter.
D.E. 7. On approximately February 22, 2017, prospective
counsel contacted the Court via telephone and indicated that
she may be retained, and requested additional time to file an
amended complaint. D.E. 9. The Court granted the extension
ordering that if Plaintiff chose to file an amended
complaint, he must do so on or before March 17, 2017, whether
through counsel or proceeding pro se. Id. It appears
that Plaintiff ultimately did not retain counsel. On March
17, 2017, pro se Plaintiff filed the Amended
Complaint. D.E. 10.
allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court must review the complaint and dismiss the action if
it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). "A complaint is frivolous if it
'lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.'" Okpor v. Sedgwick CMS, No. 12-6521,
2013 WL 1145041, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2013) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). And
when considering dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the
Court must apply the same standard of review as that for
dismissing a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed.App'x 120,
122 (3d Cir. 2012).
addition, "[a] federal court is bound to consider its
own jurisdiction preliminary to consideration of the
merits." Kaplan v. Garrison, No. 15-1915, 2015
WL 2159827, at *2 (D.N.J. May 6, 2015) (quoting Trent
Realty Assocs. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of
Phila., 657 F.2d 29, 36 (3d Cir.1981)). If
subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must
dismiss the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). A federal court
has jurisdiction in a civil case if either a federal question
is presented or if the parties are completely diverse and the
attendant monetary threshold is satisfied. SeeArbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006).
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes
the pleadings liberally and holds them to a less stringent
standard than those filed by attorneys. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). "The Court need
not, however, credit a pro se plaintiffs 'bald
assertions' or 'legal conclusions.'"
D'Agostino v. CECOMRDEC, No. 10-4558, 2010 WL
3719623, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2010) (citing Morse v.
Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d
facts of this matter are described in detail in the
Court's October 27, 2016 Opinion. D.E. 4. Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint does not include any of the factual
allegations described in his previously filed
Complaints. The Amended Complaint alleges that
"Defendants made factual error, discrimination due to
his background authentics (sic) and negligence in rejecting
the Plaintiff['s] operating authority by their written
order . . . due to this factual error the plaintiff suffered
a hudge (sic) amount of loss and damages as addressed [in]
the orgional (sic) compalint (sic)." D.E. 10.
Amended Complaint fails to plausibly assert a cognizable
claim against Defendants. Even when viewing the Amended
Complaint liberally, and including the allegations from the
August 2, 2016 Complaint (D.E. 1), the Court is unable to
ascertain an identifiable claim upon which relief can be
noted in the Court's October 27, 2016 Opinion, the
initial Complaint did not state a viable cause of action. The
additional allegations in the Amended Complaint do not remedy
the deficiencies identified by the Court. The Amended
Complaint does not allege any facts - much less plausible
facts - to support a cause of action. Even when construed
liberally, Plaintiff makes only a conclusory statement that
Defendants discriminated against him and were negligent,
without providing any facts to support his
Plaintiff requests to amend the Complaint "to include
the discrimination against him" (D.E. 10), the Court
made clear in its February 22, 2017 Order that "no
further extensions shall be granted, (D.E. 9). If Plaintiff
wanted to include facts about any alleged discrimination, he
was required to do so in the Amended Complaint. The Court has
dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint without prejudice three times
and provided him with multiple extensions that have amounted
to months of time to file a proper complaint. Therefore,
Plaintiffs request for an additional extension is denied and
the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
conclusion, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice. This means the matter is closed and Plaintiff may
not re-file another complaint against the named defendants
based on the allegations raised in this case. An appropriate
Order accompanies this Opinion.