United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KEITH L. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff,
ALEX OFFITT, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the application of plaintiff
Keith L. Griffin for leave to commence this action without
payment of the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Upon consideration of the financial affidavit
provided with the application, the Court finds that the
plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the
fee. Therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After
reviewing plaintiff's complaint, however, this action
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To 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 on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
has filed this case on a court-approved form for employment
discrimination. As to the nature of the discrimination,
plaintiff checks that he is bringing the case under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation
Act”), as amended 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, et
seq., for employment discrimination on the basis of
pages appear to be missing from plaintiff's complaint,
most notably his statement of claims. In his request for
relief, plaintiff states his request in its entirety as
Appoint my pleading for this lawsuit against the Vatterott
school of endanger[ed] and false statement of abandonment of
my family that criminal act toward my family due to a prolog
filing that could have been prevented.
lawsuit is one of four that plaintiff has filed recently in
this Court. See Griffin v. Vatterott, No.
4:17-CV-2632 DDN (E.D. Mo. filed Oct. 26, 2017) (dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction and maliciousness); Griffin v.
Vatterott, No. 4:17-CV-2657 RLW (E.D. Mo. filed Oct. 30,
2017) (dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of
subject matter jurisdiction); Griffin v.
Jack-en-Box, No. 4:17-CV-2668 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. filed Oct.
31, 2017) (pending). Like his two prior cases that were
dismissed on initial review, here plaintiff seems to allege
that Vatterott College has harmed him in some way. He names
Alex Offit as the sole defendant, but does not identify Offit
and makes no factual allegations against him.
outset, the Court notes that even pro se litigants are
obligated to plead specific facts and proper jurisdiction and
must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff
has failed to do so in this case. See United States v.
Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994); Boswell v.
Honorable Governor of Texas, 138 F.Supp.2d 782, 785
(N.D. Tex. 2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (complaint should
contain “short and plain statement” of claims);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1) (each claim shall be “simple,
concise, and direct”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) (parties are
to separate their claims into paragraphs, “each limited
. . . to a single set of circumstances”).
construing plaintiff's complaint, he has not alleged any
employment discrimination based on the Rehabilitation Act. He
has not alleged any employer, any discrimination, or any
disability. Plaintiff has never alleged in any of his four
cases with this Court that he has been employed by Vatterott
College or Mr. Offitt. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
on which relief may be granted, and the Court will dismiss
his action. See 28 U.S.C. §
the Court will dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's action does not
appear to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States, and thus, federal question jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable. Nor has
plaintiff alleged any diversity of ...