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

CLINTELL COTHRAN PLAINTIFF

V. 3:23CV00018 JM

TOMMY DAVIS, Owner, Budget Rentals DEFENDANT

ORDER Plaintiff Clintell Cothran’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. He reports living on social security retirement. See Martin-Trigona v. Stewart,

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

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

(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,

(2007); see also Aschroft v. Iqbal,

(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,

(8th Cir. 1985). In his Complaint, Cothran says that he has been continually harassed by Defendant, who Cothran says asks for rent although he is not his landlord. (Doc. 2). He seeks damages. Cothran’s complaint must be dismissed as he offers no specifics to support federal jurisdiction. While Cothran asserts that the parties are diverse, they are both Arkansans. (Doc. 2 at 1-2);

. And, Cothran has presented no federal question that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See

. Instead, he alleges state law tort claims. Cothran’s 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.

(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this 13" day of February, 2023.

enro hE | ct JUDGE