Glorice McPherson v. T-Mobile, et al.

Summary

A magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice of Glorice McPherson’s recast complaint against T-Mobile and other defendants following screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The recommendation concludes that the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims under the cited civil rights, peonage, and consumer protection statutes, and recommends denying related motions as moot.

Holdings

1. The recast complaint failed to state a claim because it supplied no factual allegations sufficient to make any asserted claim plausible on its face.
2. Plaintiff failed to state a § 1981 claim because the recast complaint did not allege that she was discriminated against based on race.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a peonage claim because she did not allege that Defendants forced her to work to pay off a debt.
4. Plaintiff failed to state plausible claims under the cited federal consumer-protection statutes because she merely listed statutes and supplied no supporting factual details.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the recast complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and the pleading standard applied during screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2. Whether the recast complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by alleging discrimination based on race.
3. Whether the citation to 18 U.S.C. § 1581 stated a peonage claim absent allegations that Plaintiff was forced to work to repay a debt.
4. Whether Plaintiff's vague references to federal consumer-protection statutes stated plausible claims.
5. Whether Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment should be denied as moot because they lacked factual support.

Disposition

other