United States District Court, D. Delaware
SIRENA R. PERMENTER, Beneficial Owner and Designated Representative fo Permenter, Sirena R., Assignor, Plaintiff,
JOHN W. FORD, doing business as RE/MAX Associates/Broker, et al., Defendants.
plaintiff, Sirena R. Permenter ("Permenter"), who
resides in Middletown, Delaware, filed this lawsuit on
January 2, 2018. (D.I. 2.) She appears pro se and
was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 5.) The court now
proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
filed this "petition for declaratory judgment under
protective order 'special matter of interest to
note'" invoking Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) and (c)(A), 35
U.S.C. § 31, 28 U.S.C.§ 2201, 28 U.S.C. §
1338, 28 U.S.C. § 451, and the RICO Act. She seeks
declaratory judgment against all defendants "for certain
violations of, without limitation, the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, Trafficking of Persons, False Claims Act, White Collar
Crime inclusive without limitation to, similar provisions
with respect to similar fraud, anti-bribery provisions of the
FCPA now also apply to foreign firms and persons who cause,
directly or through agents, an act in furtherance of such
corrupt payment to take place within the territory of the
United States, casuistry, money laundering, general
abuse." (D.I. 2 at 3.)
far from clear, it appears this lawsuit has something to do
with the purchase, discount purchase, failed purchase,
mortgage, or auction of real property. Permenter refers to
fraudulent liens and a real estate auction was not disclosed
to her. It is not clear what Permenter seeks in her prayer
for relief. She has also filed a motion for injunctive
relief. (D.I. 4.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain
in forma pauperis actions that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must accept all
factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in
the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff.
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229
(3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007). Because Permenter proceeds pro se, her
pleading is liberally construed and her complaint,
"however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94
action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as
frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or
"fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.
Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill,
878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is
identical to the legal standard used when ruling on 12(b)(6)
motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240
(3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard to
dismissal for failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint or
claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the court must grant Permenter leave to amend
her complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that
a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City
of Shelby, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A
complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect
statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.
See Id. at 346.
the pleading regime established by Twombly and
Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the
elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2)
identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and
(3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp. , 809 F.3d 780, 787
(3d Cir. 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the
complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to
relief Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a
"context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
conclusory allegations do not meet the pleading requirements
of Iqbal and Twombly. After thoroughly
reviewing the complaint, the court draws on its judicial
experience and common sense and finds that the allegations
are not plausible on their face. Indeed, the complaint refers
to federal statutes that have no connection to the
allegations, consists of claims that are clearly baseless and
are insufficient to withstand this court's evaluation for
frivolity dismissal. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
there are no viable federal claims, this court does not have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor is there
jurisdiction by reason of diversity under 28 U.S.C. §
1332 given that all parties are citizens of the same state -
Delaware - as evidenced by the completed UMS-285 forms
Permenter provided to the court.
the complaint fail to state a federal claim and the parties
are not diverse, this court ...