United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Michael A. Shipp, United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Jose L.
Linares's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss. (ECF
No. 3.) Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (Def.s' Moving
Br., ECF No. 3-1.) Plaintiff Lidya Radin ("Plaintiff)
filed a Motion for Default Judgment and an Omnibus
Cross-Motion requesting, among other things, that the Court
strike Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as frivolous.
(Pl.s' Moving Br,, ECF No. 4.) Defendant replied.
(Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 5.) The Court has carefully
considered the parties' submissions and decides the
matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule
bears the burden of showing that no claim has been
presented" on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. Hedges v. United States,
404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). Rule 8(a)(2) "requires
only a short and plain statement of the claim," enough
facts to demonstrate "the pleader is entitled to
relief," and "fair notice of what... the claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell All.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). The Court construes construes the
Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, accepting
all factual allegations as true, but disregarding all
"unadorned" conclusions. Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 578 (2009)).
Complaint states in its entirety:
At 402 East State Street, Trenton, N.J., on April 18, 2018,
in violation of the New Jersey Penal Code, a man "Keith
Holland" harassed, threatened Plaintiff, impersonated a
public servant or law enforcement officer, prevented and
obstructed Plaintiff from accessing the court, created a
disturbance, and in doing so, damaged Plaintiff. Court
Security Administrator Jose L. Linares is responsible for
court security from his position on the court security
committee. This is the third such incident damaging
(Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 1-1.)
Complaint fails to provide a short and plain statement
demonstrating she is entitled to the relief sought, as
required under Rule 8(a)(2). In fact, she neither identifies
a legal cause of action, nor provides sufficient facts
concerning the nature of her injury. See Kassin v. United
States Postal Service, No. 11-1482, 2011 WL 6002836, at
*2 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2011) C'[T]he Court cannot
manufacture a fitting legal cause of action."); see
also Itiowe v. United States Gov't, No. 14-6342,
2015 WL 12911733, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2015) (granting the
defendant's motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs
complaint was conclusory and failed to provide sufficient
factual support). Thus, the Court is unable to discern a
legal cause of action from Plaintiffs factual allegations.
Because the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint are
insufficient to satisfy Rule 8(a), the Court finds good cause
to grant Defendant's motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Moreover, Plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule 8(a)
prohibits the Court from determining whether proper
jurisdiction exists over this action.
Court, however, permits Plaintiff to file an amended
Complaint. See Itiowe, 2015 WL 12911733, at *2
(citing Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,
245 (3d Cir. 2008)) ("When a complaint is subject to
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, amendment should be permitted unless
it is prejudicial or futile."). Plaintiffs amended
complaint must comply with Rule 8(a)'s mandate that she
include grounds for the Court's jurisdiction and all
factual allegations underlying the lawsuit.
upon the foregoing, and for good cause shown, the Court
GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
without prejudice. By October 12, 2018,
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. Failure to file an
amended complaint will result in dismissal of the Complaint
with prejudice. An order consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion will be entered.
 The Court notes Plaintiff
erroneously named Defendant as Court Security Administrator.
Additionally, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for
default judgment and ...