Siruk v. Kendall

Background

Petro Siruk filed a complaint against Paul Kendall, Erick McAllister, Todd Frisinger, Assurance Partners a/k/a Trust Capital, North Mill Equipment Finance a/k/a ESF Credit, and Quality Truck Care Center. Siruk also applied to proceed without prepaying filing fees and costs. He represented himself.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim and denying the fee application as moot. Siruk timely objected. Chief Judge John R. Tunheim reviewed the complaint and fee application independently under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3).

Court’s analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), when a person applies to proceed without paying fees, the court must dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. A complaint must include enough factual allegations to allow a reasonable inference that a defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Courts read a self-represented party’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still must allege enough facts to support a claim.

Siruk appeared to allege that the defendants trespassed by sharing private personal information without consent or approval. But the complaint did not identify which defendants shared the information, or explain how, where, or with whom it was shared. Siruk’s statement that the defendants’ actions or inactions harmed him did not cure those deficiencies. The court also found that the legal basis for the claims and the specific claims against each defendant were unclear.

The court noted that Siruk had not stated a basis for federal jurisdiction in the complaint. In his objection, he asserted diversity jurisdiction and alleged diversity between himself and the individual defendants, but he did not allege diversity among the entity defendants. The court did not decide whether that jurisdictional clarification was sufficient because it dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

Chief Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Siruk’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, denied Siruk’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.