Summary
This Report and Recommendation addresses a pro se, in forma pauperis civil action in which the plaintiff appeared to assert claims on behalf of Sean P. Diddy Combs and other persons or entities. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal with prejudice as frivolous and without issuance or service of process. It also recommends a narrowly tailored prefiling injunction requiring the plaintiff to sue only on her own behalf, pay the full filing fee, and submit an affidavit certifying that future actions are not frivolous.
Holdings
- A pro se litigant may litigate only her own claims and may not represent another person in federal court.
- The complaint was frivolous and subject to summary dismissal because it failed to allege facts establishing a currently cognizable federal claim.
- The plaintiff's repeated frivolous filings supported a recommendation for a narrowly tailored prefiling injunction requiring future filings to be brought in the plaintiff's own name, accompanied by the full filing fee, and supported by a sworn affidavit that the action is not frivolous.
Questions Presented
- Whether a pro se plaintiff may litigate claims on behalf of another person.
- Whether the complaint was frivolous and subject to summary dismissal under the in forma pauperis screening process.
- Whether the plaintiff's repeated frivolous filings justified a narrowly tailored prefiling injunction and restrictions on proceeding in forma pauperis.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (18)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
- Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978)(followed)
- Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985)(followed)
- Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993)(followed)
- Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992)(followed)
- Myers v. Loudoun Cty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am. Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 818 (4th Cir. 2004)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…