Watson v. Ciconte, Wasserman, Scerba & Kerrick LLC et al, No. 1:2013cv01585 - Document 5 (D. Del. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/17/14. (mdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
I t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RENEE S. WATSON, I I l I f Plaintiffs, v. : Civ. No. 13-1585-LPS CICONTE, WASSERMAN, SCERBA & KERRICK, LLC, et al., Defendants. Renee S. Watson, Newark, Delaware, ProSe Plaintiff. I I I I ~ l I I ! MEMORANDUM OPINION l I I I ~ t J i t I I March 17, 2014 Wilmington, Delaware t t t J STARK, U.S. District Judge: f INTRODUCTION I Plaintiff Renee S. Watson ("Watson") ofNewark, Delaware filed this civil action on I. t September 20, 2013. (D.I. 2) She appears prose and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4) II. BACKGROUND Watson raises claims against Defendants Ciconte, Wasserman, Scerba, & Kerrick LLC, and Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and Delaware consumer protection laws. Also named as a defendant is Mack A. Guilford. Watson seeks compensatory and punitive damages. III. LEGAL STANDARDS This 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) (informapauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a prose plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007); Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F .3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff 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, 551 U.S. at 94 (internal quotation marks omitted). 1 I f ~ An 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; see also Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took inmate's pen and refused to give it back). The 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 Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must grant Plaintiffleave to amend her complaint, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). A 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). When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the Court conducts a two-part analysis. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and legal elements of a claim are separated. See id The Court must accept all of the complaint's wellpleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. See id at 21 0-11. The assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 2 f I ! I I t f Second, the Court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." Fowler, 578 F.3d at 211. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege the plaintiffs entitlement to relief; rather, it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. !d. A claim is facially plausible when its factual content allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the I I i t I ( misconduct alleged. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." !d. "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief."' !d. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). IV. DISCUSSION The Complaint contains no allegations directed towards Guilford. He is not named as a defendant in the caption of the case, and the civil cover sheet does not name him as a defendant. The only mention of his is in the first paragraph of the Complaint where he is described as a defendant. Based upon the above, the Court will dismiss the claims against Guilford as frivolous CONCLUSION I l For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss Guilford and the claims against him as f pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). V. ,. frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Watson will be allowed to proceed against the remaining defendants. ( I An appropriate Order follows. 3 ! '[ 'f
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
