Summary
The court denied Alyssa Dowling’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed her complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim because it contained only conclusory allegations of discrimination and disrespect, and lacked factual context or a stated basis for federal jurisdiction. The court also deemed the action malicious because the same sparse complaint had been filed in numerous federal courts.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard applicable to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
- Whether the action was malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because the same bare complaint was filed in numerous courts under circumstances indicating an intent to harass.
- Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis or amend the complaint before dismissal.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to state a claim because its conclusory allegations lacked sufficient factual matter, jurisdictional context, and a plausible legal basis for relief.
- The action was malicious because the plaintiff filed the same exceptionally sparse complaint against the same defendant in numerous courts within a short period, demonstrating an intent to harass the defendant, the courts, or both.
- The court denied the IFP application and dismissed the complaint with prejudice without granting the requested opportunity to amend.
Key quotations
“Even construing the Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, as the Court must given her pro se status, the Plaintiff’s allegations very blatantly fail to state a claim.”
“Certainly, where a plaintiff files the same complaint with the same meager allegations – really just the barest possible sentences – in 24 courts within just one day of each other, that plaintiff intends to harass either the defendant, the given court, or both.”
Factual background
The complaint consisted essentially of the allegations that the defendant displayed discrimination and failed to show due respect, together with a request for just and proper relief and an opportunity to amend. It did not identify the parties in meaningful detail, explain the basis for federal jurisdiction, or provide factual context supporting a legal claim. The plaintiff filed the same sparse complaint against the same defendant in approximately 24 courts within roughly one day, while her mailing address was in Kansas and the mailing envelope was postmarked in New Jersey.
Procedural history
Alyssa Dowling filed a one-page complaint against Eric Komitee and an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. The court determined that the complaint failed to provide sufficient factual matter, jurisdictional context, or a plausible claim, and further found that the same complaint had been filed in numerous federal courts within a short period. The court denied the IFP application, dismissed the action with prejudice, and ordered the case closed.