Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-cv-00507
11-02-2023
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN FETTERMAN, et al., Defendants.
MARIANI, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, Manetirony Clervrain, is a prolific serial litigant. Although this is only his second case filed in this judicial district, Clervrain has filed more than 300 cases and appeals in federal courts nationwide. See, e.g., Clervrain v. Kemp, No. 22-CV-145, 2022 WL 1320711, at *2 (M.D. Ga. May 3, 2022) (collecting cases). He is subject to vexatious litigant injunctions in at least seven other federal judicial districts. See Clervrain v. Erich, No. 22-cv-00163, 2022 WL 17852796 (S.D. W.Va. Dec. 22, 2022) (imposing filing restriction); Clervrain v. Biden, No. 22-1086, 2022 WL 4134722 (D. Kan. June 24, 2022) (recommending imposition of filing restriction), R&R adopted, 2022 WL 4131109 (D. Kan. Sept. 12, 2022); Clervrain v. United States, No. 22-cv-00342 (D.N.M. entered July 14, 2022) (order imposing filing restrictions); In re Clervrain, No. 22-mc-018 (E.D. Tenn. entered June 23, 2022) (injunction order); Clervrain v. Marshall, No. 21-CV-00316, 2022 WL 1542149 (W.D. N.C. May 16, 2022) (imposing filing restrictions); Clervrain v. Keller, No. 19-CV-1118, 2022 WL 1228208 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2022) (imposing filing restrictions); Clervrain v. Lawson, No. 20-cv-01306 (S.D. Ind. entered June 30, 2021) (order issuing sanction of filing ban).
In this case, Clervrain has filed a pro se federal civil rights complaint against an assortment of approximately 40 defendants,the most notable of whom is John Fetterman, Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor at the time and currently a United States senator. (Doc. 1.) The complaint is mostly comprised of what appears at first glance to be legal argument, but upon closer examination turns out to be gibberish. No actual facts are alleged, and there are no apparent references to any of the named defendants in the body of the complaint.
The complaint named 42 additional co-plaintiffs as well. The pro se complaint was stricken, however, with respect to all plaintiffs except Clervrain himself, as none of these additional 42 co-plaintiffs personally signed the pleading. (Doc. 21.) See generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). Clervrain is the only remaining plaintiff.
On its face, the pro se complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and court decisions interpreting them. Under the federal rules, a complaint must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . .;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Moreover, “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). It is also helpful for a plaintiff to number each sentence of the complaint, with each sentence stating a fact that explains what a particular defendant did that violated the plaintiff's federal constitutional rights or federal law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b); see also Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (“A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs ”). A civil rights complaint is generally adequate when it states the time, place, and persons responsible for the alleged wrongs. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. Ultimately, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that his claim has substantive plausibility. See generally Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if the “complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Ruther v. State Ky. Officers, 556 Fed. App'x 91, 92 (3d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Simmons v. Abuzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)). Moreover, because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may dismiss his complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id.
Here, the plaintiff's pro se complaint asserts vague, ambiguous, and otherwise unintelligible civil rights claims against a host of defendants. It alleges no facts that might give these defendants fair notice of the claims being brought against them. Moreover, other than listing them by name in the caption, the pro se complaint alleges no facts whatsoever regarding the numerous individual defendants.
We previously entered an order advising the pro se plaintiff of these pleading defects and directing him to file a curative amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 24.) Now, well more than thirty days later, the plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as directed, nor has he otherwise responded to our order.
Accordingly, we recommend that the pro se complaint be dismissed as unintelligible and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
We further recommend that the pro se complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, as we have previously given the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, but he has failed to do so. Considering this and the plaintiff's extensive history of filing frivolous or meritless litigation, we find that any amendment would be futile. See Ruther, 556 Fed. App'x at 92; Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002); Simmons, 49 F.3d at 86-87.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated November 2, 2023. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.