UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

! HONORABLE KAREN M, WILLIAMS ! Civil Action ACLEKUNLE A. ONATOLU, ! No. 25-1021 (KMW-MIS) Related Cases: Plaintiff, : No, 25-1062 i No. 25-1064 Vv. No. 25-1065 No, 25-1128 JUDGE COLLEEN MCMAHON, x ao 46 | No. 25-2215 Defendants, et al. ! MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff Aclekunle A. Onatolu’s eight Complaints and corresponding Applications to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Applications”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(a)(1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's [FP Applications, all applications reflect nearly identical information: Plaintiff reports that they have a monthly income of $900,00 from disability related payments, and they do not list any expenses. IFP Application 1, 8. In three of Plaintiff?s IFP filings, Plaintiff indicates that they are currently living in a mental health facility. IFP Application 4 11. THE COURT FINDING that Plaintiffs income is modest, the Court grants the IFP Applications and proceeds to screen the Complaints as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C, §

1915(e)(2)(B).! Pursuant to the requirements of

(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or otherwise seeks relief from an immune defendant. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b), Plaintiffs matters will be decided on the papers without oral argument. THE COURT NOTING that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), where an action has common questions of law or fact, the court may consolidate the actions at issue; and WHEREAS, the Court can consolidate actions sua sponte, Kamdem-Ouafjo v. Task Mgmt., No, 18-298,

at *26 (D.N.J. Jul. 9, 2018); and Here, Plaintiff has filed eight Complaints which all seem to pertain to an event that happened in the New York area in 2006, where Plaintiff contends they were discriminated against. Plaintiff requests $90,000,000,.00 in damages in each matter and reports similar injuries of “brain damage at a mental health facility.”? For example, in Case No, 25-1175, “CIA” is listed as the Defendant, and the facts state “bra[i]n damage, discrimination, pain and suffering, loss of income,” in New York City in the year 2006. In Case No. 25-1174, the Defendant is listed as “Marsha Lewis,” where Plaintiff lists similar facts: “pain and suffering, discrimination, had a baby” in New York City in the year 2006. In Case No, 25-1065, Plaintiff lists “Police Department” as the Defendant, listing “brain damage, loss of income, pain and suffering,” in New York City and New Jersey in 2006, from “mental health treatment.” Similarly, in Case No. 25-1062, Plaintiff lists “Kate Harvie” as the Defendant, asserting “false imprisonment[,} pain and suffering[,| loss of

legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)CiD is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Sehreane v. Seana, 506 F, App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012). With regard to Case No. 25-2215, Plaintiff states that “Android” is the Defendant, and the facts simply state “defective phone,” Plaintiff filed an additional “Motion” in Case No. 25-2215, however the only documents provided are a cover sheet indicating a “notice of motion” for $90,000,000.00 with a certification of service signed by Plaintiff. (ECF No, 2), This Court extends this Order to this Motion as well, dismissing it for the reasons discussed herein.

income|,| discrimination” in New York City in 2006. In Case No. 25-1064, Plaintiff lists “Mike Bloomberg” as the Defendant, asserting “brain damage[,] pain and suffering, loss of income” in New York City and New Jersey City in 2006. Finally, in Case No. 25-1021, Plaintiff lists “Judge Colleen McMahon” as the Defendant, asserting the facts of “brain damage, pain and suffering, loss of income,” in New York City in 2006. While the Court has the obligation to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, it dees not require the Court to credit bald assertions or legal conclusions: “[p]ro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Griffin State Dep’t of Human Servs., No. 18-14697,

at *2 (D.N.J. Jul. 26, 2019) (internal citation omitted). “Even a pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the allegations set forth by the plaintiff cannot be construed as supplying facts to support a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Jd. (internal citations omitted). Further, pro se plaintiffs are not absolved “of the need to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Davis vp. Forsdahi, No. 23-2313, 2025 WL 11£8629 at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 15, 2025), WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief} and a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.’ The Complaints here are devoid of any legal claims, making it impossible for the Court to ascertain if it has jurisdiction. WHEREAS, to establish jurisdiction, a pleading must either present a federal claim or trigger the court’s diversity jurisdiction. See Gibson v. Tip Towing & Recovery LLC, No. 23-2919,

at *1 Gd Cir. Feb. 16, 2024). To assert a federal claim, a pleading must assert an action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Jd. at *1n.2. To assert diversity jurisdiction, a pleading must demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship among the parties, (meaning that each defendant must be a citizen of a different state than each plaintiff), with the amount in controversy being over $75,000.00. /d. It is necessary to specifically state jurisdiction because if a federal district court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Here, other than stating they faced “discrimination,” Plaintiff does not point to any federal laws that they believe were violated or the violation of any right pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. In addition, Plaintiff does not assert that this Court would have jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, having failed to even state the citizenship of any Defendant. Thus, there is simply not enough information provided by Plaintiffto maintain any of their Complaints. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY on this Jef lay of May, 2025, ORDERED that actions No. 25-1021, No. 25-1062, No. 25-1064, No. 25-1065, No. 25- 1128, No. 25-1174, No, 25-1175, No. 25-2215 shall be consolidated for all purposes; and further ORDERED that all filings in the consolidated action shall be made in the No, 25-1021 docket; and further ORDERED that ali of Plaintiffs claims’ against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and further

3 Plaintiff filed an additional “Motion” in Case No. 25-2215, however the only documents provided are a cover sheet indicating a “notice of motion” for $90,000,000.00 with a certification of service signed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 2). This Court extends this Order to that Motion as well.

ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty G0) days to amend their pleadings into a single, comprehensive Complaint in compliance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will Order the Clerk of Court to close the case; and further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.

| & a NO □□ \ we MN hs RS St Wis 1 KAREN M. WILLIAMS United States District Judge