Shabazz v. Xerox
| Decision Date | 23 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:14-cv-578 |
| Parties | ELIKIM SHARAZOD SHABAZZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XEROX, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Bowman, M.J.
This action is before the Court on the application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by four pro se Plaintiffs, in connection with a 127 page typed complaint alleging at least twenty-five claims against the following eight entity and individual Defendants: John Polk, Xerox Business Services, LLC, Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc., State of Ohio Corporation EIN #311334820's Bank, Accumulator Agency Bank (for clearing house of child support processes (ABank)), State of Ohio Corporation EIN #311334820 (State#), Enlightened Inc., and Cynthia C. Dungey. (Doc. 4-2 at 1-2). Plaintiffs allege that their lawsuit is filed "pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1986 and 1988, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment[s] to the United States Constitution," with jurisdiction "based upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338(a) and 1343." (Id. at ¶2).
By separate Order, Plaintiffs have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court for a sua spontereview of the complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 262 (6th Cir. 1990)( procedure for screening in forma pauperis actions). Upon careful review, the undersigned finds that this action should be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to state any claim upon which relief may be granted.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides that a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action without prepayment of fees provided the applicant submits an affidavit demonstrating that he or she "is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court has the responsibility to screen all actions filed by plaintiffs including non-prisoners seeking in forma pauperis status and to dismiss any action or portion thereof which is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007); Johnson v. City of Wakefield, 2012 WL 2337343 *1 (6th Cir. June 20, 2012); Johns v. Maxey, 2008 WL 4442467 *1 (E.D.Tenn. Sept.25, 2008) (Greer, J.).
In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a "litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a payinglitigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be "liberally construed" and "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). By the same token, however, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 ().
"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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not "accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)).Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U .S. at 555). A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement." Id. at 557. The complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
Application of these general standards to Plaintiffs' complaint strongly favors dismissal of this case for failure to state a claim.
Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to file a complaint that sets forth "a short and plain statement of the claim...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In addition, Rule 8(d)(1) states that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Clearly, the 442-paragraph complaint in this case1 cannot be considered a "short and plain statement of the claim." A total of 638 pages of exhibits are attached to the 127 page complaint, apart from Exhibit EE, a set of discs that were manually filed. Many of the paragraphs contained within the complaint are legally unintelligible. See, e.g., "Upon information and belief, STATE# is a organization, organized and derived formally through the Northwest Ordinance acting as a form of Government." (Doc. 4-2 at ¶34). Among other defects, a large number of the paragraphs refer to "Defendants" collectively, leaving theDefendants uninformed as to which among them is being accused of what wrongdoing. While any number of paragraphs could illustrate these difficulties, paragraph 26 provides a typical example:
Among other things, Plaintiffs have an interest in the contract arrangement of Defendants in several ways, more importantly, because the contract calls for and uses technology that forces the Plaintiffs into activity not disclosed to the Plaintiff and involving the transferring of the private personal information and data identifiers of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs['] children to an unstable, illegitimate, international partner in Xerox, who does not hold the child support patented methods and technology legally, in addition to the inherent danger Plaintiffs face through the patent, technology and contract arrangement of the Defendants, because they utilize negotiable instruments and the remedy held at the federal reserve and Depository Trust Corporation, and blocks the Plaintiffs from utilizing the remedy provided for him by U.S. Congress in 1933.
(Doc. 4-2 at 11, ¶26).
When a pleading is so verbose as to be indecipherable, the complaint may be dismissed for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Plymale v. Freeman, No. 90-2202, 1991 WL 54882 (6th Cir. Apr.12, 1991) (); Flayter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 16 Fed. Appx. 507, 509 (7th Cir. 2001)(116-page 242-paragraph prisoner civil rights complaint "would, because of its length and level of detail, present a challenge to the defendants in filing a responsive pleading" and was a violation of Rule 8(a)(2)); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (). These cases teach that complaints such as this one merit dismissal.Accordingly, I first recommend dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Graley-Brumlow v. Brumlow, 2008 WL 5521282 (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 20, 2009); cf. Banks v. Doe, 523 Fed. Appx. 503, 2013 WL 3822132 (10th Cir. July 25, 2013) (); Binsack v. Lackawanna Cnty. Prison, 438 Fed. Appx. 158 (3rd Cir. 2011) (per curiam) ().
Aside from Plaintiffs' failure to comply with Rule 8, numerous additional bases warrant the dismissal of the instant complaint for failure to state a claim. These additional grounds are set forth in part to illustrate the futility of any proposed amendment to Plaintiffs' complaint.
To continue reading
Request your trial