Melville v. Fialo

Background

Keith Melville filed this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court had granted that request before issuing this order. Melville used the court’s general complaint form but did not identify the basis for federal jurisdiction or specify which federal constitutional or statutory rights he believed had been violated. He stated that he was a citizen of New Jersey, that Defendant Mrs. Brabra Fialo was a citizen of New York, and that the events underlying his claims occurred at Department of Motor Vehicles and police-precinct locations in 2005 and 2010.

The court described Melville’s allegations as largely incomprehensible. It also reviewed the court’s records and found that he had filed four other cases against the same defendant, three of which had been dismissed as frivolous. The court had previously warned him that additional duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to an order restricting future filings without prepayment of fees.

Legal standard

Under the federal fee-waiver statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must dismiss a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or is otherwise subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when its factual allegations are clearly baseless or when it rests on a legal theory that has no arguable merit.

The court also explained that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously, but the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must comply with the requirement for a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Melville’s complaint lacked any arguable basis in fact or law. It characterized the factual allegations as irrational and concluded that Melville had no legal theory on which he could rely. The court therefore determined that dismissal was required both because the complaint was frivolous and because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Although courts ordinarily may allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend, this court found that amendment would be futile. It therefore did not grant leave to amend.

Rulings and current status

The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). The court did not yet enter the proposed filing restriction. Instead, it ordered Melville to submit, within 30 days, a declaration explaining why he should not be barred from filing future actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained permission from the court. The order stated that if he failed to submit the declaration, or if it did not show good cause, the restriction would be entered.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Melville, note service on the docket, and keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.