Witchard v. Tolerson

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Witchard v. Tolerson

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ASIA MONIQUE WITCHARD PLAINTIFF

V. 4:21CV01071 JM

WICK TOLERSON, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Asia Witchard’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. She reports minimal income and present homelessness. See Martin-Trigona v. Stewart,

691 F.2d 856, 857

(8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (complaint can be filed if plaintiff qualifies by economic status under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)). The law requires that the Court screen the Complaint.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2). “A pro se plaintiff must set forth enough factual allegations to ‘nudge [ ] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,’ or ‘their complaint must be dismissed’ for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 569-70

(2007); see also Aschroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). Regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented or is appearing pro se, the plaintiff’s complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent,

780 F.2d 1334, 1337

(8th Cir. 1985). In a one-paragraph complaint, Witchard contends she was denied freedom of speech and reasonable accommodations in violation of federal law. (Doc. 2 at 4). She seeks $100,000. (Doc. 2 at 4). Witchard, an Arkansan, attempted to assert diversity jurisdiction,

28 U.S.C. § 1332

; however, complete diversity does not exist as some of the named defendants are Arkansans. Nevertheless, because one of the named defendants is a supervisor for Housing and Urban Development, the Clerk filed her complaint as seeking relief under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. Witchard offers no specifics. Rather, her complaint 1s completely conclusory and unsupported by argument and fails as a matter of law. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 ULS.C. § 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of November, 2021.

ce ME

Reference

Status
Unknown