Arnold v. United States Marshal Service

Background

Marie Encar Arnold filed the complaint while representing herself and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that fee waiver but separately screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The case was related to an earlier case Arnold had voluntarily dismissed and was reassigned for review.

Arnold sued the United States Marshal Service, United States Marshal Agent George Nichols, and United States Marshal Agent Russell Slope. She described an incident in which Nichols allegedly said “criminal defense” near her in a courthouse cafeteria. She also alleged that Slope neglected her complaint. Other allegations referred to evidence tampering, surveillance, cyberhacking, interference with her phone, emails, computer, and medical records, property theft, electronic harassment devices, and alleged abuse of her daughters. She sought $10 billion and “protection for the U.S. Government or job position Federal Protective Services.”

Court’s analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a court must dismiss a case filed without paying the filing fee if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court explained that a self-represented complaint is read liberally, but it still must include enough factual matter to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). A claim cannot rest only on conclusory statements or unsupported assertions.

The court found that Arnold’s complaint did not explain how Nichols’s alleged statement violated her rights, did not clarify the allegations against Slope, and otherwise presented vague and insubstantial allegations. It therefore found that the complaint failed to state a claim under § 1915(e).

Ruling

The court ordered Arnold to file a first amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by May 10, 2023. If she did not file a timely amended complaint, the court stated that it would recommend that the action be dismissed. The court denied as moot Arnold’s motions to extend the deadline to serve the defendants and to reschedule the initial case-management conference. The court stated that the conference would be reset if appropriate after the § 1915(e) review was resolved.