Summary:
The court reviewed Marquita Hagins' pro se application to proceed in forma pauperis and her associated complaint. The court allowed her application solely for the purpose of conducting a frivolity review, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). During this review, the court found while a pro se plaintiff is entitled to more leeway than one represented by an attorney, Hagins’ complaint, which alleged fraudulent conveyance of a mortgage deed and other violations, lacked sufficient factual basis to support her claims under the cited federal statutes, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and various criminal statutes that do not provide for private rights of action.
Additionally, the court found no valid basis for federal jurisdiction or any clear state law claims to support diversity jurisdiction. As a result, the magistrate judge recommended that Hagins’ complaint be dismissed without prejudice, meaning she could potentially refile if she corrected the deficiencies. Hagins was given until June 5, 2024, to file objections and the failure to do so could result in the presiding district judge adopting the recommendation and barring her from appealing the decision.
Commentary:
With no further filings, this case was then dismissed on July 16, 2024.
With proper attribution, please share this post.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments