United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
V. HODGES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jordan (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this action against Patricia Foldessey,
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Brandy Snyder, Ashley Shaffer,
Barbara Periera, Nathan Ballentine, and the South Carolina
House of Representatives. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e)
(D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such
complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations
to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the
undersigned recommends that the district judge dismiss the
complaint in this case without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process.
Factual and Procedural Background
alleges fraud, forgery, and corruption claims related to the
sale of 124 Bakersland Road, Chapin, South Carolina
(“Property”). [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff seeks to
prove all defendants are guilty of conspiracy and obstruction
of justice, and some defendants are guilty of forgery,
bribery, and receiving stolen goods. Id. at 3.
Standard of Review
filed this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which
permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal
court without prepaying the administrative costs of
proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible
abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court
to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous
or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A
finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a
meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Allison v.
Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 73 (5th Cir. 1995).
complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal district court is
charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro
se litigant to allow the development of a potentially
meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the
plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true.
Merriweather v. Reynolds, 586 F.Supp.2d 548, 554
(D.S.C. 2008). The mandated liberal construction afforded to
pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read
the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff
could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement
of liberal construction does not mean that the court can
ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that
set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district
court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d
387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
has previously filed a complaint in this court raising
substantially similar facts, causes of action, and grounds
for relief. See Jordan v. Wilson, C/A No.
3:18-1589-JFA (D.S.C. June 11, 2018) (“Jordan
I”). Jordan I was summarily dismissed
without prejudice on August 7, 2018. Id. As in her
previous case, Plaintiff provides insufficient factual
allegations in the instant complaint to state a cognizable
filed her complaint seeking to prove defendants violated
South Carolina criminal laws concerning the sale of the
Property. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff, however, may not pursue a
claim based on the State of South Carolina's failure to
prosecute defendants for purported criminal offenses.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to, or a
judicially-cognizable interest in, the criminal prosecution
or non-prosecution of another person or entity. See Leeke
v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1981). “[T]he
benefit that a third party may receive from having someone
else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger
protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its
procedural nor in its ‘substantive'
manifestations.” Town of Castle Rock v.
Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 768 (2005). The undersigned
finds Plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of her complaint
because her claims concerning defendants' purported
violations of South Carolina criminal law fail to state a
cause of action that can be brought in this court.
Accordingly, any amendment would be futile.
Conclusion and Recommendation
foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that this case
be dismissed without prejudice and ...