Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-00474/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-00474-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARIAN A. BLOCKER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REPUTATION.COM; SPOKEO.COM;

TYLER STAMPFLI; WELL FARGO,

N.A.; U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN

OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI; CITY OF

TUPELO; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI;

TUPELO POLICE DEPARTMENT;

LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

JUDGE; LIFE LOCK; FT. COLLINS,

COLORADOPOLICEDEPARTMENT;

FEDERAL JUDGES OF THE

N OR TH E R N D I ST R I C T O F

MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-0474-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is presently before the court on plaintiff Marian Blocker’s In Forma

Pauperis Affidavit, (doc. 2),1 which the court deems to be Blocker’s Motion for Leave to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and for appointment of an attorney. For the reasons set forth

below, Blocker’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and for Appointment of

an Attorney is due to be denied and this case will be dismissed with prejudice.

1Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to each

document as it is filed in the court’s record.

FILED

 2015 Jun-01 PM 02:57

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-00474-SLB Document 4 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 5
Blocker has filed a General Complaint Form for Pro Se Litigants, (doc. 1), in which

she alleges:

I went to all mentioned and listed parties for aid [and] assistance [and] wasn’t

helped [with] everything being “flipped” ending in my being charged [with]

felony fraud and false pretenses. All of this stemmed from hacking/theft of

information by [defendant] Stampfli [with defendant] Wells Fargo knowing

about everything [and] doing nothing. Reports were [filed] with Tupelo

[Police Department], Lifelock, [Mississippi Attorney General’s] Office, FBI,

FTC [and] FCC [with] nothing being done as well as [with] Ft. Collins [Police

Department] Financial Crimes [Division]. Tupelo [District Attorney’s] Office 

used said stolen materials to illegally charge [and] extort [money] out of

myself [with] the aid of [Tupelo Police Department] Det. McKinney [and] all

[four] Circuit Judges.

(Doc. 1 at 3.) Blocker asserts that defendants are incorporated in “MS, AL, CA, CO, AZ,”

and refers the court to her attachments and enclosures, (id. at 1), which total 346 pages, (see

docs. 1-1 to 1-40; see also docs. 3-1 to 3-3 [adding an additional 54 pages of exhibits]).

As part of her “attachments and enclosures” Blocker included a report from Detective

Daniel McKinney of the Tupelo Police Department, which describes the following incident

underlying this case: 

On 2/27/2013 Tyler Stampfli deposited $1350.00 in the account of Marian

Blocker. Tyler believed he was purchasing a radio. The website that he

attempted to [buy] the radio from was a fictitious site. The person he was

communicating with about the radio requested he transfer the money into an

account with the account number, routing number and name of Marian

Blocker. After transferring the money the item was never received by

Stampfli. Contact was made between Stampfli and Blocker with Blocker

admitting to receiving the money. She claims that she was “hacked”. Blocker

also admitted to spending the money. I made contact with Blocker via phone

and she also advised me that she did receive the money but did not know

2

Case 2:14-cv-00474-SLB Document 4 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 5
where the money was from.

2

I informed her that funds were placed into her

account by fraudulent transactions and I requested that she return the money

to Tyler. She has refused to return the money.

(Doc. 1-10 at 8 [footnote added].)

Section § 1915(e)(2) requires the court to screen complaints before granting leave to

proceed without prepayment of fees. It states:

[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that--

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or 

(B) the action or appeal-- 

(i) is frivolous or malicious; 

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

The court notes that this matter is due to be dismissed because this court does not have

venue. Under federal law:

A civil action may be brought in – 

2McKinney’s report of this phone conversation states:

During our phone conversation [Blocker] admitted to receiving the money and

spending the money. She claims that she had nothing to do with the “scam”

and states that she is also a victim of ID Theft. . . . I requested that she return

the money to Stampfli. Blocker advised me that it was not her problem that

money was placed in her account and does not feel it is her responsibility to

return the money.

(Doc. 1-10 at 10.)

3

Case 2:14-cv-00474-SLB Document 4 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 5
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are

residents of the State in which the district is located;

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the

subject of the action is situated; or

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as

provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject

to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

The court notes that Stampfli resides in Colorado and the Tupelo and Mississippi

defendants reside in Mississippi. Therefore, the Northern District of Alabama does not have

venue pursuant to § 1391(b)(1) because all the defendants do not reside in Alabama. Also,

none of the events or omissions giving rise to Blocker’s claims occurred in the Northern

District of Alabama. Therefore, this court does not have venue pursuant to § 1391(b)(2). 

Finally, nothing in the record indicates that this case could not be filed in Mississippi. 

Therefore, this court does not have venue pursuant to § 1391(b)(3).

The court also notes that Blocker’s claims are frivolous. She contends that the

defendants did not aid and assist her when she claimed hacking and theft of information

arising from the mistaken deposit of funds into her account. First, the court notes that the

governmental defendants had no general duty to assist her. See generally Town of Castle

Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). Second, Blocker had no right to keep the money

mistakenly deposited into her account. The documents submitted with her Pro Se Complaint

Form show that she was indicted after she admitted that she had withdrawn the money and

4

Case 2:14-cv-00474-SLB Document 4 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 5
after she refused to repay it. Indeed, Mississippi law requires Blocker to repay Stampfli the

funds he mistakenly deposited into her account. See Lyons v. Misskelley, 759 F. Supp. 324,

(S.D. Miss. 1990). The law provides Blocker no cause of action against these defendants3

based on injuries she suffered as a result of her failure to give Stampfli back his money.

4

 

Because Blocker has failed to state a claim for relief and because venue is improper

in this court, Blocker’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and for

Appointment of an Attorney is due to be denied and her claims against all defendants will

be dismissed without prejudice. An Order denying Blocker’s Motion for Leave to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis and for appointment of an attorney and dismissing her claims will be

entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.

DONE this 1st day of June, 2015.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3Because the court finds that Blocker has failed to state a claim for relief, the court

makes no finding as to whether some or all of the governmental defendants are entitled to

immunity – either absolute or qualified.

4The court makes no finding as to whether the State of Mississippi could prove that

Blocker was responsible for the scheme that induced Stampfli to deposit his money into

Blocker’s account as charged in the Indictment. (See doc. 1-10 at 1.)

5

Case 2:14-cv-00474-SLB Document 4 Filed 06/01/15 Page 5 of 5