Cherry v. Gaurda Security

Background

Aaron Cherry filed a complaint against Guarda Security and Nicollet Mall and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court determined that Cherry qualified financially for that status. It nevertheless had to review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal when a fee-waiver applicant’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief.

Court’s analysis

The court said that, despite its efforts, it did not understand what Cherry alleged or why he claimed that the defendants violated the law.

To the extent Cherry sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for “cruel and unusual punishment” or “unequal rights,” the court held that neither defendant was a state actor. As a result, neither defendant could be sued under § 1983 for the alleged constitutional violations. The court also stated that, even if the defendants could be sued under § 1983, the complaint did not support a reasonable inference that Cherry’s constitutional rights had been violated.

The court further held that the complaint did not establish a violation of state law. It also did not establish original federal jurisdiction over any state-law claims because Cherry did not allege that more than $75,000 was at stake between the parties. Finally, because Cherry had not pleaded a federal-law claim, the court stated that it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Disposition

The court ordered that the matter be DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also DENIED Cherry’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The order directed that judgment be entered.