Juste v. Mcdonald Rest. Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-54 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | ANDRE JUSTE, and MOTJUSTE TIRADE OF VIM ANDRE JUSTE, Plaintiffs, v. MCDONALD RESTAURANT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff Andre Juste filed a pro se Complaint on behalf of himself and MotJuste Tirade of Vim Andre Juste,1 a corporation, alleging that Defendants engaged in false advertising, defamed him and otherwise portrayed him in a false light by connecting him to a bank robbery committed in Shepherdstown, West Virginian in May 2010. (Compl. at 15-28, ECF No. 1). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 for damage to his reputation, humiliation, physical anguish and emotional distress. (Compl. at 19). On April 14, 2015, this case was transferred to the Northern District of West Virginia from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (ECF No. 3). This matter is currently before the undersigned on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2).
When filing a lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff is required to pay certain filing fees. The Court has the authority to allow a case to proceed without the prepayment of fees "by a personwho affirms by affidavit that he or she is unable to pay costs." L.R. Gen. P. 3.01; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The plaintiff files this affidavit along with a request or Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The purpose of the "federal in forma pauperis statute...is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989).
When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the court conducts a preliminary review of the lawsuit before allowing the case to proceed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A case is often dismissed sua sponte (i.e., based on the court's own decision) before the defendant is notified of the case "so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324. When reviewing a case filed by a pro se plaintiff, the Court liberally construes the complaint. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
As stated above, under the federal in forma pauperis statute, a case may be dismissed if the court finds the complaint to be frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A complaint is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. A complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is not automatically frivolous. Id. at 328. Frivolity dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," or where the claims rely on factual allegations which are "clearly baseless." Id. at 327; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). This includes claims in which the plaintiff has little or no chance of success. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
The federal in forma pauperis statute allows a court to sua sponte dismiss a complaint that "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Although a complaint need not assert "detailed factual allegations," it must contain "more than labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must raise a right to relief that is more than speculative. Id. In other words, the complaint must contain allegations that are "plausible" on their face, rather than merely "conceivable." Id. at 555, 570. Therefore, in order for a complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir.2002); Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 2002). A "claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must offer more than "a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" in order to meet the plausibility standard and survive dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id; see also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
On May 5, 2010, a robbery occurred at the United Bank in Maddex Square in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Plaintiff asserts that photographs were obtained from videosurveillance from the McDonald's restaurant located next to the United Bank. (Compl. at 11). These photographs were then provided to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. (Id.). Plaintiff asserts that on or about May 19, 2010, NBC 25 News/WHAQ wrongfully broadcasted Plaintiff's photograph over the news in connection with a bank robbery. (Compl. at 13, 15). On or about May 19, 2010, the Journal Newspaper also wrongfully published Plaintiff's photograph in connection with the robbery; the story was allegedly written by Matt Armstrong. (Compl. at 15, 21-22). Along with the photographs, Detective Steven Holz of Jefferson County Sheriff's Department stated that authorities were trying to identify the black man wearing a red jacket in the surveillance photographs. (Compl. at 17). Employees of the McDonald's stated they saw the man in the photograph on several occasions, he was a regular customer and that he spoke with an accent, possibly Jamaican. (Compl. at 17). Plaintiff alleges that employees of CVS further engaged in defamation of character by identifying him as the robber. (Compl. at 13). Plaintiff states in full:
Each of the Defendants acted in concert with respect to the creation, writing, editing, and publishing of libel, slanderous the defamatory of Character false publication and information or statements [] media and advertised article that is the subject matter of this action and then that defendant caused 'thousands of copies' libels, slanders of the defamatory of character article that [] subject matter of this action to be circulated the photo of Andre Juste in the State of [West] Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and others including on the Web.
(Compl. at 15). He further alleges the false information and statements were made "with reckless disregard for truth or falsity" and Defendants knew they had no reliable or unbiased evidence. (Compl. at 19). Due to the release of the photographs connecting him with the robbery, Plaintiff alleges he "suffered damage to his reputation irreparable harms, shame, [], mastication, humiliation and anguish physically and emotional distress, all to his general [] in the amount of $50,000,000.00." (Compl. at 19).
While Plaintiff filed his Complaint on behalf of himself and his "corporation," MotJuste Tirade of Vim Andre Juste, Mr. Juste cannot represent a corporation as a pro se Plaintiff. The Fourth Circuit has endorsed the "well-established rule that 'a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.'" Flame S.A. v. Freight Bulk Pte. Ltd., 762 F.3d 352, 355 n.3 (4th Cir. 2014); see also In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 290 n. 17 (4th Cir. 2014) (); Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 212 (1993). Accordingly, Mr. Juste cannot proceed pro se on behalf of his "corporation," MotJuste Tirade of Vim Andre Juste. Therefore, the Court will refer only to "Plaintiff," meaning Mr. Juste himself.
Only certain types of cases may be filed in federal district court. In order to properly rule on a lawsuit, a federal district court must be able to exercise jurisdiction over the parties and particular claims raised in a complaint. A federal district court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over cases that involve a "federal question" or those cases that involve a controversy exceeding $75,000.00 between citizens from different states. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that the case lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
1. Federal Question Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 In order to base subject matter jurisdiction on "federal question" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the civil case must "aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." The well-pleaded complaint rule requires that the federal question appear on the face of a properly-pleaded complaint; otherwise, the court lacks federal question...
To continue reading
Request your trial