United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court upon the filing of an Amended
Complaint by Plaintiff Christiana Itiowe. [Dkt. No. 33]. For
the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
will be dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiff's claims
against all Defendants in this matter will be dismissed, with
prejudice, and this matter will be closed.
December 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against The
Untied States (sic); President Obama; and then Presidentelect
Trump. On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint adding the U.S. Department of Justice; Jeff
Sessions; the Supreme Court of the United States, Attention:
Mr. John Roberts; John Kelly; the United States Department of
Homeland Security; Judges Michael Fisher, Thomas Vanaskie,
and Kent Jordan of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit; District Court Judges Jerome Simandle and
Michael Shipp, and Magistrate Judge Douglas Arpert, of the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
Megan Brennan; the United States Postal Service,
(collectively, the “Federal Defendants”); the New
Jersey State Police; the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission;
the Superior Court of New Jersey - Appellate Division; the
Superior Court of New Jersey - Mercer Vicinage; Governor
Chris Christie; New Jersey State Police Superintendent
Colonel Rick Fuentes; New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission
Chief Administrator Raymond P. Martinez; the Honorable Carmen
H. Alvarez, P.J.A.D.; the Honorable Susan L. Reisner,
P.J.A.D.; the Honorable George S. Leone, J.A.D.; the
Honorable Mitchel E. Ostrer, J.S.C.; the Honorable Douglas
Hurd, P.J.Cv.; and the Honorable Darlene J. Pereksta, J.S.C.
(collectively, the “State Defendants”); the
Trenton Police Department; Police Director Ernest Parrey,
Jr.; the City of Trenton; Mayor Eric Jackson; Kimberley
Wilson, Chief Municipal Prosecutor for Trenton; Municipal
Judges Kenneth Lozier and Douglas Hoffman; Hamilton Township
Chief of Police James Collins; and Hamilton Township
Municipal Prosecutor Jerry Dasti (collectively, the
March 20, 2017, the Federal Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. [Dkt. No. 10]. On April 24, 2017, the State
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. [Dkt. No. 18]. On
September 26, 2017, the Court granted both motions. [Dkt. No.
26]. In its accompanying Opinion, the Court explained that
because Plaintiff (1) provided no factual basis for any of
her claims of conspiracy; (2) failed to provide any basis
whatsoever for her entitlement to the $800 trillion she seeks
in relief; and (3) because her Complaint was “almost
incomprehensible, ” Plaintiff failed to comply with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. [Dkt. No. 25]. The Court granted Plaintiff
thirty days to file an amended complaint containing a
“short and plain statement” of her claim.
[Id. at 4]. The Court warned Plaintiff that if she
did not file an amended complaint, her Complaint would be
dismissed with prejudice. Moreover, the Court held that the
Federal and State Defendants need not file responsive
pleadings until further Order of the Court, “affording
this Court the opportunity to determine, sua sponte,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), if the
allegations ‘are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to
be absolutely devoid of merit, . . . wholly insubstantial, .
. . obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, . . . or no
longer open to discussion.'” [Id. (citing
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37
(1974)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted))].
December 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended
Complaint. [Dkt. No. 33]. This amended filing suffers from
the same deficiencies as Plaintiff's previous filings.
For the most part, it merely repeats the vague allegations
found in the Amended Complaint with a few stylistic changes.
It is unclear from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
how any of the State or Federal Defendants - or any Defendant
for that matter - is alleged to have violated
Plaintiff's rights in any way. The portions of the filing
that the Court can comprehend merely consist of vague
conclusory allegations of a conspiracy against Plaintiff
involving an “attack” against her car, her
drivers license being revoked, and Plaintiff suffering from a
heart attack. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
contains no plausible factual allegations of wrongdoing by
any Defendant. Thus, not only does Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint fail to provide “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief” as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), but the
allegations contained therein are “plainly
unsubstantial.” Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536-37.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint will be
dismissed, with prejudice.
 Several Defendants in this matter have
not filed answers or otherwise responded to Plaintiff's
pleadings. Because Plaintiff's claims against such
Defendants suffer from the same problems as those against the
State and Federal Defendants, the Court will sua
sponte dismiss those claims. See, e.g.,
Itiowe v. Trentonian, 620 Fed.Appx. 65, 67 n.2 (3d
Cir. 2015) (citing and quoting Hagans, 415 U.S. at
536-37) (“a federal court may sua sponte
dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) when the allegations within the complaint
‘are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be
absolutely devoid of merit, . . . wholly insubstantial, . . .
obviously frivolous, . . . plainly unsubstantial, . . . or no
longer open to discussion.'”).
 The Court recognizes that because
Plaintiff is pro se, her pleadings must be
interpreted liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (“[H]owever inartfully pleaded,
” the “allegations of a pro se complaint
[are held] to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers[.]”). This does not, however,
totally absolve Plaintiff of the need to adhere to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g.,
Fantone v. Latini, 780 F.3d 184, 193 (3d Cir. 2015),
as amended (Mar. 24, 2015)(“ a pro se
complaint . . . must be held to ‘less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers;' . .
. but we nonetheless review the pleading to ensure that it
has ‘sufficient factual matter; accepted as true; to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on [its]
face.'”). Even affording Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint the most liberal interpretation, it does
not state any cognizable claims.
The Court is also cognizant that because cases are
best resolved on their merits, leave to amend should be
freely given when justice so requires. See Mullin v.
Balicki, 875 F.3d 140, 149 (3d Cir. 2017)(citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2)). Moreover, in civil rights cases,
“district courts must offer amendment . . .
-irrespective of whether it is requested-when dismissing a
case for failure to state a claim unless doing so would be
inequitable or futile.” Id. at 151 (citing
Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors,
Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007); Estate of
Lagano v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 769 F.3d
850, 861 (3d Cir. 2014)). Here, however, after two attempts
at amendment, Plaintiff's pleadings are still