United States District Court, E.D. Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the Amended Complaint filed
by plaintiff Charmane Smith, proceeding herein in forma
pauperis. This action will be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
is not a prisoner, but she has been granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Title 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) provides, with respect to litigants proceeding
in forma pauperis, the court “shall dismiss
the case at any time” if the court determines that it
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (iii). A claim is frivolous when it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable
basis in fact only if the facts alleged are “clearly
baseless, ” a category encompassing fanciful,
fantastic, and delusional allegations. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324 (a plaintiff proceeding in
forma pauperis lacks economic incentive to refrain from
filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits).
state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than
“legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are]
supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must
demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than
a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id.
at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678.
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw upon its judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679.
commenced this action in this Court on November 28, 2016,
naming MasterCard International as defendant. Following
initial review that revealed numerous problems with the
original complaint, this Court entered an order on December
15, 2016 allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to submit an
amended complaint no later than December 29, 2016. Plaintiff
sought and was granted additional time, and then timely filed
the instant Amended Complaint on January 3, 2017.
December 15, 2016 order, this Court wrote that Plaintiff has
been a very frequent pro se and in forma
pauperis litigator in other United States District
Courts, and that the District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee had noted her history of having filed
“numerous, patently meritless actions, ” quoting
Smith v. Dell, 2007 WL 3232037 at *1 (W.D. Tenn.
October 31, 2007). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff notes
the foregoing and avers that the District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee had her “illegally
committed to a Federal Prison Psychiatric Facility - as a
cover up.” (Docket No. 8 at 2). Plaintiff explains that
the “corruption of the legal officials who participated
in the criminal proceedings against me caused me to lose
faith and trust in the legal system and judiciary - which
contributed to the many lawsuit filings in multiple
jurisdictions as well as my abrupt haltings of litigation
efforts in the past.” (Id.)
Amended Complaint spans ten pages, and contains nothing more
than conclusory allegations lacking in factual enhancement.
Plaintiff provides general definitions of legal terms and
general theories about the activities of “Black Hat
Hackers (a.k.a Computer Crackers or Hackers).”
(Id. at 3). Plaintiff states that these criminals
exploit “security flaws in Mastercard
International's Debit/Credit Card(s) Products,
Processing, Processors, and Banking Services, ” and she
describes the various criminal schemes that are possible.
(Id.) Plaintiff states that computer hackers
inserted unspecified information into unspecified billing
statements to make it appear that she was not making
payments, and that this continued until she stopped
submitting payments and the accounts were closed. (Docket No.
8 at 6-7). Plaintiff alleges that the hackers intended for
the accounts to be closed so they “could hide how they
were tampering with the account(s) records from the bank
writes: “The Defendant is being sued for Tortious
Interference with the credit account(s) that was made
possible through the Security Weaknesses Exploited and
Breaches committed by the Hackers, resulting in specious,
falsified, and electronically forged/duplicated billing
statements I received.” (Id. at 7)
(emphasis in original). Plaintiff states that the
injuries began in “December of 2007 to present
day.” (Id.) Plaintiff vaguely identifies the
affected accounts as follows: “[a]t 6 major banks, a
total of 15 Credit/Debit Cards were compromised, each having
credit limits of up to $2, 500.00.” (Docket No. 8 at
the timeliness of this lawsuit, Plaintiff states:
I was unable to file suit at an earlier time due to
Excludable Delay and Excusable Neglect that tolls the statute
of limitations. Lack of trust in the court system, tortious
interference by Computer Hackers interfered with
postal/phone/fax/email communications with the courts and
attorneys, lack of information to prove allegations of