-DEA BRETT v. TESTA'S BAKERY et al, No. 3:2010cv03542 - Document 2 (D.N.J. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 7/22/2010. (gxh)

Download PDF
-DEA BRETT v. TESTA'S BAKERY et al Doc. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ____________________________________ : : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : TESTA S BAKERY, et al., : : Defendants. : : ___________________________________ : FRANK BRETT, Civil Action No. 10-3542 (JAP) OPINION PISANO, District Judge. Presently before the Court is pro se plaintiff Frank Brett s application to proceed in forma pauperis ( IFP ) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff brings this action against Testa s Bakery - Sal Testa and Ewing Library - Mike and Gary. Based on plaintiff s application and affidavit of indigency, the Court finds that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee for this action. As such, plaintiff s application shall be granted. Under the IFP statute, a court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint if the complaint is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Being mindful that the court must construe a pro se complaint liberally, the Court nonetheless finds that dismissal of plaintiff s complaint is warranted in this case. In the first paragraph of Plaintiff s handwritten and partially illegible complaint, he alleges that Sal Testa and his friends have run me over in NJ. It is unclear what Plaintiff means by this. He also appears to be alleging that he has been slandered, but it is unclear by Dockets.Justia.com whom. In the next paragraph of the complaint, Plaintiff appears to be alleging that certain persons had their cell phones on in the Ewing library, thereby violating the Telecommunications Act of 1996" and FISA, presumably a reference to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The remaining six pages of the complaint are each captioned with a day and date and list what appear to be several hundred license plate numbers that, as best as the Court can construe, were recorded at the various places and times specified on each page. These bear no cognizable relationship to any allegations in the complaint. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to plead a state law defamation claim, his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remainder of Plaintiff s complaint appears to be frivolous, but, in any event, the complaint lacks enough factual matter to state a claim under the Rule 8 pleading standard. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Consequently, the Court shall dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit has directed that before dismissing a pro se complaint, district courts should expressly state, where appropriate, that the plaintiff has leave to amend within a specified period of time. Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2000). Because the complaint, among other things, suffers from a lack of factual specificity, the Court will allow Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint within 20 days to correct the deficiencies identified herein. Last, Plaintiff attaches two motions. The first seeks to keep Federal Judge David Baker out of this case. Presumably Plaintiff is referring to United States Magistrate Judge David Baker from the United States District Court in Middle District of Florida. To the extent this document can be construed as a motion, it is denied as frivolous. The second motion seeks to file documents under seal. It is supported only by a single 2 sentence that reads I have been run over by cars and my life has been threatened several times. This motion is so deficient, it does not even provide the Court with enough factual support to justify sealing the documents temporarily pending a more complete motion. Therefore, to the extent that this second document seeks relief from the Court, it is denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion. /s/ JOEL A. PISANO United States District Judge Dated: July 22, 2010 3

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.