United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
ORDER
Max O.
Cogburn Jr. United States District Judge.
THIS
MATTER is before the Court on pro se
plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees and Affidavit (#2) and Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Emergency Hearing (#3).
FINDINGS
and CONCLUSIONS
I.
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
The
Court has carefully considered plaintiff's affidavit in
conjunction with the Health and Human Services Poverty
Guidelines, see
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines, and
concludes that it is unable to determine whether plaintiff is
able to pay the filing fee and costs associated with service
of process.
Plaintiff
provided no information about his financial state on his
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and
Affidavit. Other than the top portion of the first page,
which includes only the parties' names and
plaintiff's signature, the Application is completely
blank. Plaintiff did not answer the questions regarding how
much, if any, annual income he receives; whether he owns any
assets; or whether he relies on any persons for support. Nor
did plaintiff answer any of the questions regarding his
estimated living expenses. He simply drew a vertical line
down the page in response to questions 1 through 7, and he
make no markings at all in response to questions 8 through
12.
The
Court acknowledges that pro se motions are construed
liberally and is generally flexible with pro se
plaintiffs attempting to navigate the judicial system. But
this particular filing includes “Instructions”
which tell the applicant not to leave any blanks and to write
responses for each question, even if the answer to a question
is “0, ” “none, ” or “not
applicable (N/A).” Plaintiff presumably read these
instructions, as he signed and dated the lines located
directly below the Instructions section. See Hood v. Uber
Techs., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-998, 2019 WL 93546, at *3
(M.D. N.C. Jan. 3, 2019) (“[C]ourts generally presume
that readers of important documents have a basic level of
understanding and willingness to read with care.”);
see, e.g., Chapman v. Allied Van Lines,
Inc., No. 5:15-CV-615, 2018 WL 701627, at *10 (E.D. N.C.
Feb. 2, 2018) (noting “courts must presume that person
who signs a contract has read it in its entirety”).
The
Court has, however, liberally considered the strike through
of paragraphs to mean that plaintiff has no income, no
assets, and no third-party sources of income, and will grant
plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees and Affidavit (#2), subject to later revisiting the
issue if it is shown that plaintiff does have assets or
sources of income. Process will not, however, issue as it
appears that the action is frivolous.
II.
Section 1915 Review
Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a district court must dismiss
a case at any time if it determines that the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from suit. Id. A pro
se plaintiff's allegations in a complaint are to be
liberally construed, and a court should not dismiss an action
for failure to state a claim “unless after accepting
all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint
as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from
those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain
that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support
of his claim entitling him to relief.” De'Lonta
v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). Pro
se filings “however unskillfully pleaded, must be
liberally construed.” Noble v. Barnett, 24
F.3d 582, 587 n.6 (4th Cir. 1994).
A.
Plaintiff's Contentions
The
Court has closely considered the substantive allegations of
the Complaint and determines plaintiff has made the following
allegations. While plaintiff states this Court has
jurisdiction over his Complaint based on “Rule 65.
Injunctions and Restraining Orders!”, close review of
the Complaint does not reveal that this court has any
jurisdiction over any Complaint that plaintiff has expressed
against “Crestmont @ Ballentyne LLC, ” which
appears to be defendant's apartment complex.
From
what can be discerned from plaintiff's handwritten
Complaint, which is largely illegible, the Court believes
that plaintiff's Count 1 reads as follows:
A lawful invalid court order has been issued in violation of
state and federal law! Basicly [sic], I file [sic] a suit
against corp [sic] in district court, the attorney for said
corp [sic]uses a defense that he just happened to check with
secretary of state and discovered that said entity is
nonexistent, therefore the court has no jurisdiction over a
nonexistent entity. Judge dismisses [sic] case without
allowing me to speak. Cont'd on back . . . If you can
believe this; the same attorney/corporation, in retaliation
files a phony manufactured suit against me using this same
corporation that is fictitious and nonexistent where a
district court judge just ruled. A blantant [sic] finger in
the eye of Lady Justice! In that case I prevailed, proved my
case, the judge ruled in my favor. Since that [sic] a lot has
went on and there's been an onslaught of retaliatin [sic]
from them toward me which is exactly what an unsuspecting,
unknowing deputy sheriff is preparing to serve a writ of
...