United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NORMAN K. MOON, District Judge.
The pro se Plaintiffs filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, along with a complaint. I hereby grant Plaintiffs' motion and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, district courts have a duty to screen initial filings and dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis "at any time if the court determines that... the action or appeal... is frivolous or malicious... [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted...." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); see also Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656 (4th Cir. 2006). "[Section] 1915 permits district courts to independently assess the merits of in forma pauperis complaints, and to exclude suits that have no arguable basis in law or fact.'" Eriline, 440 F.3d at 656 (quoting Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995)).
Upon review of the complaint, Plaintiffs fail to state a legal claim upon which relief may be granted. Several weeks ago, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in forma pauperis, which I dismissed for failure to state a claim. The previous complaint contained enough information that I could discern that it involved an unlawful detainer proceeding against Plaintiffs after the foreclosure sale of a property they inhabited.
The instant complaint includes a "STATEMENT OF CLAIM, " which states the following (quoted verbatim):
Plaintiff asserts that the above named Defendants have caused immeasurable harm to the Plaintiffs and the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. February 13, 2015. The court failed to consider a duly recorded motion by complainants as attached to the case as presented at the hearing on afore stated date. The complaints objected to proceeding at the hearing without servicing the aforementioned defendants as none where at the hearing as requested in the attached motion but judgement was rendered for possession for unlawful detainer. As stated First at the hearing we the complainants expressed Not unlawful retainer but, Ownership. The Loan servicer and Trustee both had received notirized request for veification of debt prior to the trustee sale and requesting a ten day responce. As of the date never any responce.
The complaint continues with a handwritten section that states, "As we seek adjudication in a court having proper jurisdiction and not one such as a General District not having subject matter jurisdiction." The next page states the following: "Request for stay of any writ from lower court until adjudicated."
The next (and final) page states as follows (quoted verbatim):
In light of all the foregoing facts it is quite evident that the Defendants have violated dew process and acted in bad faith by denying Plaintiffs their unalienable rights and having caused immeasurable harm to not only the Plaintiffs but to the Plaintiff's family, client's and the public at large. Plaintiffs have properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted therefore and thereby eradicating any attempt by the Defendants to file a standard frivolous Motion to Dismiss response pursuant to Rule 12(b) by falsely claiming Plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF SOUGHT
a.i.1. Plaintiffs are seeking actual, general, punitive, compensatory and special damages to be determined at a trial by jury.
a.i.2. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following ...