United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
E. FALLON JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
VAN MEERVELD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
se plaintiff Wayne Gordon filed the above-captioned
matter in this Court in which he raises claims against the
defendants arising out of the attempted purchase of a truck.
Gordon alleges that he engaged an individual named George
Smith to purchase a pickup truck on Gordon's behalf at an
auction in Mississippi. Gordon says that he released a
deposit of $1, 000 towards the $5, 600 purchase price to
Smith, but never received the truck. He appears to allege he
paid an additional $4, 900 to Smith. Gordon does not name
Smith as a defendant. He names Manheim Mississippi
(“Manheim”) and its owner named as John Doe;
Manheim's receptionist Lacey Langino; another Manheim
receptionist named as Jane Doe; and Manheim's insurer
named as XYX Insurance Company. He alleges that all
defendants are Mississippi citizens. It appears he alleges
that Manheim was the auction house or the seller of the
vehicle he attempted to purchase.
September 1, 2017, the Court ordered Gordon to show cause by
Friday, September 29, 2017, as to why this case should not be
summarily dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). Alexander
responded in writing on September 11, 2017.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) provides for summary dismissal
sua sponte, should the Court determine that a case
is frivolous. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides in pertinent
part as follows:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
* * *
(B) the action or appeal -
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) (emphasis added). In
plain language, § 1915 requires dismissal if the Court
is satisfied that the case fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (noting that a claim is
"frivolous" where it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact).
Court has permitted the plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis in the instant proceeding under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, summons has not issued
in order to allow the Court to review plaintiff's
complaint to determine whether it satisfies the requirements
of the federal in forma pauperis statute. On its
face, plaintiff's complaint fails to meet the
requirements of the statute. There exists no absolute right
to proceed in forma pauperis in federal civil
matters; instead, it is a privilege extended to those unable
to pay filing fees when it is apparent that the claims do
not lack merit on their face. See Startii v. United
States, 415 ...