Mills v. Bluth

Summary

This Report and Recommendation recommends summary dismissal of Anthony Mills’s pro se in forma pauperis action against Arlene Bluth. The court concludes that the complaint fails to establish subject-matter or personal jurisdiction, proper venue, or a plausible claim for relief, and is frivolous and duplicative of numerous substantially identical actions filed in other federal districts. The recommendation also notes that Bluth, identified as a New York state judge, may be entitled to judicial immunity.

Holdings

1. A federal court must determine sua sponte whether a valid basis for subject matter jurisdiction exists and must dismiss when the pleadings do not allege facts establishing federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
2. A federal court in South Carolina may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when authorized by South Carolina's long-arm statute and consistent with Fourteenth Amendment due process, including minimum contacts with the forum.
3. A complaint must allege facts showing that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); where a plaintiff files in a district with no apparent connection to the parties or events, dismissal rather than transfer may be appropriate when the filing reflects an obvious error imposing unnecessary costs.
4. Conclusory allegations that a defendant conspired to deprive a plaintiff of due process, without supporting factual matter identifying the conduct, legal basis, or injury, do not state a plausible claim for relief.
5. An in forma pauperis complaint that is substantively duplicative of numerous other federal actions may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint alleged facts establishing federal-question or diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether the complaint alleged facts establishing personal jurisdiction over Defendant in South Carolina.
3. Whether venue was proper in the District of South Carolina.
4. Whether the complaint stated a plausible, cognizable federal or state claim.
5. Whether the duplicative and frivolous nature of the complaint warranted dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Disposition

other