Case 1:O7—cv—OO458—WMS Document4 Filed 10/22/07 Page lof7
`Case 1:07-cv-00458-WMS Document 4 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 7
`
`_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`, WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`3333037 22 PH hgg
`
`A LISA s. COLLINS,
`
`r_r..__.T
`,-w__.«._|l,-
`W9-W - BU-3%"
`
`-PS-0-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-v-
`
`DECISTON AND ORDER
`
`07—CV-0458S(F)
`
`T
`
`OFFICER EMANUAL BANKS, Raligh Police Department,
`STATE FARM INSURANCE CO..
`JULIA DUDDA, Head Assistance Enterprise Rental,
`DANIEL T. SCAGLIONE, CLINT CUDD,
`JAKE POPE, KAY CRAWFORD, and MEDICAL DAVID
`
`Defendants.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff, Lisa Collins, has filed a complaint (Docket No. 2) and application
`
`Z
`
`to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2). Plaintiff’s complaint is, at best,%
`
`confusing and illogical, and, at worst, delusional. The basis of the complaint:
`- appears to be that in 2000 plaintiff purchased an automobile insurance policyi
`
`from a State Farm Insurance Office located in Medina, New York, and that while
`
`- she was in Raleigh, North Carolina, an unknown “Black assailant with bandaha"
`
`fired an “almost fatal bullet” into the driver side of an automobile she had
`
`' apparently rented from Enterprise Rental in North Carolina. The bullet lodged in
`her back and after returning to New York she put in a claim with State Farm and
`
`: Enterprise Renal, which was denied.
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00458-WMS Document 4 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 7
`
`_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`, WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`3333037 22 PH hgg
`
`A LISA s. COLLINS,
`
`r_r..__.T
`,-w__.«._|l,-
`W9-W - BU-3%"
`
`-PS-0-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-v-
`
`DECISTON AND ORDER
`
`07—CV-0458S(F)
`
`T
`
`OFFICER EMANUAL BANKS, Raligh Police Department,
`STATE FARM INSURANCE CO..
`JULIA DUDDA, Head Assistance Enterprise Rental,
`DANIEL T. SCAGLIONE, CLINT CUDD,
`JAKE POPE, KAY CRAWFORD, and MEDICAL DAVID
`
`Defendants.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff, Lisa Collins, has filed a complaint (Docket No. 2) and application
`
`Z
`
`to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2). Plaintiff’s complaint is, at best,%
`
`confusing and illogical, and, at worst, delusional. The basis of the complaint:
`- appears to be that in 2000 plaintiff purchased an automobile insurance policyi
`
`from a State Farm Insurance Office located in Medina, New York, and that while
`
`- she was in Raleigh, North Carolina, an unknown “Black assailant with bandaha"
`
`fired an “almost fatal bullet” into the driver side of an automobile she had
`
`' apparently rented from Enterprise Rental in North Carolina. The bullet lodged in
`her back and after returning to New York she put in a claim with State Farm and
`
`: Enterprise Renal, which was denied.
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00458-WMS Document 4 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 7
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO458—WMS Document4 Filed 10/22/O7 Page2 of7
`
`The complaint also refers to such apparently unrelated items as a letter
`
`plaintiff received from Vice President Dick Cheney in relation to her father; and
`
`plaintiff's sister, a financial manager in North Carolina, who owned with her
`
`2 husband a chain of coffee shops in North Carolina and who now lives in the $tate
`
`. of Washington.
`
`Attached to the complaint, among other things, is a letter plaintiff fonivairded
`to the North Carolina Bar Association. which explains that plaintiff owned a 1989
`
`=
`
`' automobile insured by State Farm in Medina, New York, which was stolen
`: North Carolina and damaged, but State Farm refused to pay her anything onéher
`f claim under an insurance policy;‘ a notice of claim against Erie County Medical
`
`: Center alleging medical malpractice; reimbursement notices from New York
`
`State's Crime Victims Bureau for loss of cash and a lawn mower; and a notice
`
`_ from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated February 27, 2007, regarding a
`
`benefits cost of living increase in 2005 and 2006. What, if anything, these
`
`documents have to do with the allegations in the complaint is not clear to the;
`
`' Court. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's request to proceed as a poor
`
`person is granted and the complaint is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to
`
`_ 28 U.S.C.§1915(e)(2)(B).
`
`‘The Court presumes this is the same automobile insurance policy referred to in the complaint but
`does not know ifthe automobile that a bullet was fired into and was damaged is the same automobile referred
`to in this letter or an automobile she had rented from Enterprise in North Carolina.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00458-WMS Document 4 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 7
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO458—WMS Document4 Filed 10/22/O7 Page3of7 3
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Because plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § ‘l9§‘l5(a)
`
`and filed an Authorization with respect to this action, plaintiff is granted
`
`_ permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28
`
`: provides that the Court shall dismiss a case in which in forma pauperis status has
`
`been granted if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious;
`
`(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
`
`relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
`
`I
`
`Z
`
`in evaluating the complaint, the Court must accept as true all of the factual
`
`allegations and must draw all inferences in plaintiffs favor. See Larkfn 1/. Savage,
`318 F.3d ‘I38, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Moreover, “a court is obligedéto
`
`3 construe [pro se] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights
`
`: violations." McEaChi'n V. MCGufnm's, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004).
`
`. Nevertheless. even pleadings submitted pro se must meet the notice
`
`requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wynoler v.
`
`McMahon, 360 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2004). Thus, “[t]o survive dismissat, the plairlitiff
`
`3 must provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations
`
`3 sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” ATS!
`
`Communications, inc. v. Shaar Fund, l'_td., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007)
`
`' (quoting BellAtI. Corp. v. Twombly, -—— U.S. —---, ----, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007).
`Generally, the Court will afford a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend or to be
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00458-WMS Document 4 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 7
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO458—WMS Document4 Filed 10/22/O7 Page4of7 j
`
`_ heard prior to dismissal “unless the court can rule out any possibility, howeveir
`
`- unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.”
`
`Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639 (quoting Gomez v. USAA Federal Savings Bank,
`
`_ F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam )).
`
`Although it is clear from plaintiff's complaint that she believes she was;
`
`_ wronged in some way or denied payments under an insurance policy, it is
`
`impossible to determine from the papers the nature of plaintiff's claims or the
`
`involvement of some of the named defendants in the various claims alleged.
`
`Even assuming the Court had subject matterjurisdiction over the claims.
`
`whatever they may be, and personal jurisdiction over some or all of the
`
`defendants named in the complaint, the complaint would nonetheless need ti) be
`
`dismissed because it simply is frivolous?
`
`The same statute that allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal 3
`
`action in federal court in forma pauperis "authorizes federal courts to dismiss a
`
`'
`
`: claim filed innforma pauperls 'if satisfied that the action is frivolous or ma|icioLis.‘"
`
`Neltzke v. Wmlams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989), citing to what is now 28
`
`1915(e).
`
`§
`
`7
`
`Section 1915[e] is designed largely to discourage the
`filing of, and waste ofjudicial and private resources
`
`2Plaintiff has filed recently three other actions in this Court Collins V. Collins, 07-CV-004398; Collins
`V. Bram, ef al., U7-CV-004935; and Collins V. Kowalskieral, 07-"CV-005098. The first action, U7-CV-04398,
`. has been dismissed because the Court did not have subject matterjurisdiction over the claim alleged in the
`complaint. The other two are pending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00458-WMS Document 4 Filed 10/22/07 Page 5 of 7
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO458—WMS D0cument4 Filed 10/22/O7 Page50f7 =
`
`upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally
`do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suits and
`because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious
`suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. To this
`end, the statute accords judges not only the authority to
`dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal
`theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of
`the comp|aint's factual allegations and dismiss those
`claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.
`Examples of the former class are claims against which it
`is clear that the defendants are immune from suit
`and
`
`claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly
`does not exist.... Examples of the latter class are claims
`describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with
`which federal district judges are all too familiar.
`
`,
`,
`5
`
`Id. at 327-28, 1833 (citations omitted).
`
`[T]he § 1915[e] frivolousness determination, frequently
`made sua sponte before the defendant has even been
`asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a factfinding
`process for the resolution of disputed facts.
`[A] court
`may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the
`facts alleged are "clearly base|ess," a category
`encompassing allegations that are "fanciful," "fantastic,"
`and "delusional." As those words suggest, a finding of
`factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts
`alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
`incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable
`facts available to contradict them.
`
`Z Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S.
`
`327, 1o9s.ct. at 1833).
`
`As summarized above, plaintiff's claims are the type of "fantastic" or
`
`"delusional" allegations that warrant dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(l3)(i)
`
`- as factually frivolous. Moreover, while the usual practice is to allow leave to
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO458—WMS Document4 Filed 10/22/O7 Page6of7
`Case 1:07-cv-00458-WMS Document 4 Filed 10/22/07 Page 6 of 7
`
`replead a deficient complaint, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); see also Ronzani v. Sanofi,
`
`. S.A., 899 F.2d 195, 198 (2d Cir. 1990), especially where a complaint has been
`
`submitted pro se, Davidson v. Flynn, 32 F.3d 27, 31 (2d Cir. 1994), such leavie
`
`' may be denied where amendment would be futile. such as in this case. See ielso
`
`Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639 (citations omitted) (pro se plaintiff should be provided an
`
`opportunity to amend prior to dismissal “unless the court can rule out any
`
`possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would
`
`succeed in stating a claim").
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and filed
`
`3 an Authorization with respect to the filing fee. Accordingly, plaintiff's request to
`
`i proceed in forma pauperis is granted and, for the reasons discussed above, the
`- comptaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(Bl(i).
`
`The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 "U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any
`
`; appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and leave to appeal
`
`'
`
`the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied, Coppedge v. United States,
`
`I 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person
`
`' should be directed. on motion, to the United States Court of Appeals for the
`_ Second Circuit, in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate;
`
`- Procedure.
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-00458-WMS Document 4 Filed 10/22/07 Page 7 of 7
`Case 1:O7—cv—OO458—WMS D0cument4 Filed 10/22/O7 Page70f7 ;
`
`ORDER
`
`IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that plaintiffs request to proceed in forma
`pauperis is granted and the application for service by the U.S. Marshal is denied;
`FURTHER, that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and
`I
`FURTHER, that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is
`
`denied.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`E
`HONIO
`GE
`CHIEF J
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT '5
`
`CHARD J. ARCARA
`
`
`
`Dated: Q1. If
`
`,2oo7
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
