Eunice Allen v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denies Eunice Allen’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because her stated monthly income exceeds her expenses. The Court also concludes that the complaint does not state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants are private parties and no other federal claim is pleaded. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice, with thirty days granted to amend and pay the filing fee to reopen the case.

Holdings

1. Allen failed to show that she was unable to pay the costs of litigation because her stated monthly income exceeded her monthly expenses; therefore, the IFP application was denied.
2. The complaint did not state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege that any defendant acted under color of state law.
3. The complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because its allegations were, at most, common-law breach-of-contract claims and did not identify a violation of the Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty.
4. Because the complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, dismissal without prejudice was required, subject to Allen's opportunity to amend within thirty days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Allen demonstrated sufficient indigence to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
2. Whether the complaint established federal-question jurisdiction by stating a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or another federal law.
3. Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and whether Allen should receive leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed