United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
SYLVESTER L. EVANS, JR. A/K/A CHURCH
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
se plaintiff Sylvester L. Evans, Jr. filed the
above-captioned matter in this Court in which he sues Fuji
Xeros for allegedly breaching a contract that required the
parties to “classified/personal information to be
revealed during hearing S.L.E. Including crown jewel
agreement in which I a key.” [Doc. #1 at p. 4]. As
relief, Evans seeks “[a]ll damages and complete and
sovereign control.” [Id.].
December 28, 2018, this Court order Evans to show cause by
January 28, 2019 as to why this case should not be summarily
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii) for
failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Evans has done so [Doc. #7] - albeit late.
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:
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 B
(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, Section 1915 requires dismissal if the Court
is satisfied that the case fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.
Court has permitted the plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis in the instant proceeding under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. Â§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
district court may dismiss as frivolous the complaint of a
[party] proceeding [in forma pauperis] if it lacks
an arguable basis in law or fact.” Geiger v.
Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). “A
complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint
alleges violation [sic] of a legal interest which clearly
does not exist.” Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d
674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact
when the plaintiff's allegations are so “fanciful,
” “fantastic, ” and
“delusional” as to be “wholly
incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325, 328 (1989)).
complaint consists of disjointed, unintelligible allegations
that do not state a coherent cause of action against
defendant. Even under the liberal construction that is
typically accorded pro se pleadings, the complaint
fails to advance any credible theory of recovery and lacks an
arguable basis in fact. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2) requires “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)) (emphasis added). The Court finds that -
as written - Evans's complaint does not accomplish this
and would not allow a defendant, let alone this defendant, to
craft a meaningful response.
reply to the order on the rule to show cause, Evans asks only
that this Court “find [his] grievances worthy for a
hearing” and that he has some evidence to support his
complaint in St. James, Louisiana. But this does not expound
on or explain the factual allegations in his original
complaint and thus fails to show ...