United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
V. EAGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1)
and plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Dkt. # 2). Plaintiff, appearing pro
se, has filed a complaint (Dkt. # 1) alleging claims
against employees of the post office apparently arising out
of a dispute over the delivery of mail. Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se and, consistent with Supreme Court
and Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court will construe her
pro se pleadings liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Gaines v.
Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002).
September 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a pro se
complaint, and it is difficult to determine the factual basis
for her claims based on her rambling complaint. Plaintiff
references a “hate crimes movement” surrounding
“false hospice” care and the mistreatment of
veterans, and complains about an “illegal forced
eviction around Presidential and Governor returning letters
to Guide cases and hearings related to War Crimes, with
issues continuing after 9-11-19.” Dkt. # 1, at 1. She
could also be complaining about an incident of disability
discrimination that occurred on a city bus, but she has not
named the bus driver as a party. Id. It appears that
plaintiff was attempting to pick up her mail at a post office
in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and a dispute arose when she was told
that could not get her mail at that particular post office.
Id. at 2. It is difficult to discern precisely what
occurred from the allegations of the complaint, but there may
have been a second incident when plaintiff was told that she
could not pick up her mail at that particular post office.
Id. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief to
“stop injury on spinal permanent SSI diagnosis”
and she seeks $500, 000 “for denied return calls by
Postal Co-Chairs . . . .” Id.
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 are applicable. See
Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309 (10th
Cir. 2005). Section 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to
dismiss a case if at any time the court determines that
“the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious [or]
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” A court reviewing a pro se
plaintiff’s complaint must broadly construe the
allegations of the complaint to determine if the plaintiff
can state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The
generous construction to be given a pro se
litigant’s allegations “does not relieve the
plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which
a recognized legal claim could be based.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Notwithstanding a pro se plaintiff’s various
mistakes or misunderstandings of legal doctrines or
procedural requirements, “if a court can reasonably
read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the
plaintiff could prevail, it should do so . . . .”
Id. A reviewing court need not accept “mere
conclusions characterizing pleaded facts.” Bryson
v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990);
see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (“While a complaint attacked by a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the
grounds of [her] entitlement to relief requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”) (quotation
marks and citations omitted). The court “will not
supply additional factual allegations to round out a
plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a
plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New
Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
Court has conducted a screening of plaintiff’s
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and finds that she has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in her complaint and
her factual allegations do concern the delivery of mail, and
this could potentially invoke federal question jurisdiction.
See Curiale v. Potter, 147 F. App’x 743, 744
(10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2005). The Court finds at least two
potential problems with construing plaintiff’s
complaint to allege a federal law claim concerning the
delivery of mail. First, the relief plaintiff seeks is
entirely unrelated to any dispute over the pick up of mail at
the post office. This calls into question whether plaintiff
could state a valid claim for relief, but it raises an issue
as to whether she has standing to proceed with a case against
defendants. To have standing under Article III of the United
States Constitution, plaintiff must show that she (1) has an
injury in fact, (2) that there is a causal connection between
the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) that a ruling
in her favor would redress the alleged injury. Rector v.
City and County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935, 942 (10th Cir.
2003). Plaintiff seeks damages for unreturned phone calls and
a declaratory judgment “to stop injury on spinal
permanent SSI diagnosis, ” but it not clear that
remedies she seeks would redress any issue related to the
alleged failure to allow her to pick up mail. Second,
plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. It appears from the complaint that plaintiff had
a dispute with postal workers concerning the pick up of mail,
but she states that she had never picked up her mail at this
post office. Dkt. # 1, at 2. She was told that she could not
“get your mail here, change addresses, ” and this
suggests that she there was no mail for plaintiff to pick up
at the post office. The Court appreciates that plaintiff is
proceeding pro se and has broadly construed her
complaint, but there does not appear to be any factual basis
for a claim against the named defendants. The Court will also
consider whether plaintiff could be alleging state law claims
against defendants. The Court notes that plaintiff has not
alleged the citizenship of each of the defendants, and the
Court cannot determine if the parties are completely diverse
based on the allegations of the complaint. In any event, none
of plaintiff s allegation could be construed to assert a
claim under state law, and the Court can discern no potential
state law claims in plaintiffs complaint.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff s complaint
(Dkt. # 1) is dismissed without prejudice,
and plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. # 2) is moot. ...