Opinion
Civ. 23-01453 (MAJ)
10-18-2023
Robert W. Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Facebook, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MARIA ANTONGIORGI-JORDAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this action against Defendants Facebook, Rudy Giuliani, Vladimir Putin, Donald J. Trump, and Twitter et al., vaguely alluding to alleged constitutional violations. (ECF No. 1). Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint lacks the necessary factual matter to substantiate its claims or establish jurisdiction. Id. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The First Circuit, while cautioning against hasty sua sponte dismissals, does allow for such action in cases burdened by frivolous claims or incurably defective pleadings. See Clorox Co. P.R. v. Proctor & Gamble Com. Co., 228 F.3d 24, 30-31 (1st Cir. 2000); Verogna v. Johnstone, 583 F.Supp.3d 331, 334 (D.N.H. 2022), aff'd, No. 22-1364, 2022 WL 19795808 (1st Cir. Nov. 14, 2022). Frivolity, in this context, is understood as lacking an arguable basis in either law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (defining the meaning of “frivolous” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Moreover, when a plaintiff, like the one at bar, opts to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court is authorized to dismiss the action if it is "frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." (ECF Nos. 1, 3); See Maldonado-Arce v. Claro Puerto Rico, 17-cv-2134, 2018 WL 9801871, at *3 (D.P.R. Sept. 21, 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Given the Court's inability to identify any factual basis, legal theories, or jurisdictional grounds in Plaintiff's Complaint, dismissal is not only warranted but mandated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Id.
II. Discussion
Even a pro se litigant such as Plaintiff, and particularly one granted in forma pauperis status, is obliged under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to deliver more than a smattering of legal buzzwords lacking any discernible facts. Apart from Plaintiff's laundry list of Defendants, the Complaint only teases with an especially brief Statement of Facts which states: “All Defendants committed identity theft, fraud, U.S. Constitutional Violations, RICO acts, and Due Process violations.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). While brevity can be valuable, the Complaint lacks the requisite detail to meet the pleading standards established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff at the time of filing his Complaint, appeared pro se. However, he has since had Counsel appointed. (ECF No. 8).
The federal courthouse is a “court of limited jurisdiction, limited to deciding certain cases and controversies.” Belsito Commc'ns, Inc. v. Decker, 845 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir. 2016). Moreover, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction is required. If the complaint does not clearly establish jurisdiction, it fails this standard. See Rivera v. Brennan, No. 18-cv-2028, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144270, at *7-8 (D.P.R. Aug. 2, 2021). Likewise, Rule 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Conclusory allegations without factual support do not satisfy this requirement. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Gonzalez-Camacho v. Banco Popular de P.R., 318 F.Supp.3d 461, 471 (D.P.R. 2018). Finally, if jurisdiction is not clearly established, Rule 12(b)(1) allows for a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Cebollero-Bertran v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth., 4 F.4th 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2021) (“the court is obligated to dismiss a case sua sponte if it detects a jurisdictional defect.”)
Here, drawing upon the principle that “dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction . . . is proper only when the claim is so insubstantial . . . as not to involve a federal controversy,” the Court finds itself with no other option. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (cleaned up). While we recognize that pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, “this leniency does not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive law.” Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997). Given Plaintiff's non-compliance with the above-mentioned rules, (to name a few), the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte. (ECF No. 1).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action. Accordingly, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.