Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gordon v. Doe

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

November 3, 2017

WAYNE GORDON
v.
JOHN DOE, ET AL.

         SECTION: “L” (1)

          ELDON E. FALLON JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JANIS VAN MEERVELD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Pro 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.[1] 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.

         On 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.

         28 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 that -
* * *
(B) the action or appeal -
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(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).

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.