Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180306_0000564.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:07:48+00:00

Document:
The State of South Carolina; The State of North Carolina; Time Warner Cable; Galleria Club Lane Apartment; United States Government, Defendants.
The plaintiff, Nathaniel Cooper, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Amended Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes that it should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and issuance and service of process, and that Plaintiff's motion to amend his pleading should be denied.
Plaintiff responded to the proper form order by filing proof of service forms, rather than a completed summons as the court instructed. (ECF No. 20.) At this time, the case is still not in proper form for service of process because Plaintiff has failed to file a properly completed summons.
Plaintiff also filed an Amended Complaint and motion to amend with a proposed Second Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 17 & 23). In these new pleadings, Plaintiff indicates he is no longer pursuing a patent infringement claim, and he fails to provide sufficient factual matter to support his Fair Credit Reporting Act claim. Plaintiff also dropped most of the defendants, and the only remaining defendants are the State of South Carolina, State of North Carolina, Time Warner Cable, Galleria Club Lane Apartments, and the United States Government. The only defendants Plaintiff mentions in the body of the amended pleadings are Time Warner Cable and Galleria Club Lane Apartments, but Plaintiff does not provide any facts or allegations against them that resemble a legal claim for relief. (Am. Compl, ECF No. 17 at 7.; Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 23-1 at 6.) And he again provides lists of ways in which his rights have been violated, but they are mostly lists of constitutional and statutory provisions and other quasi-legal terms and phrases, without accompanying facts.
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se pleadings. The court possesses the inherent authority to review pro se pleadings to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that a case is not frivolous, even if the pleading is not subject to the prescreening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“Section 1915(d) . . . authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision.”); Ross v. Baron, 493 Fed.Appx. 405, 406 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (“[F]rivolous complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the inherent authority of the court, even when the filing fee has been paid . . . [and] because a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an obviously frivolous complaint, dismissal prior to service of process is permitted.”) (citations omitted); see also Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee[.]”); Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1181 (7th Cir. 1989) (“[A] district court's obligation to review its own jurisdiction is a matter that must be raised sua sponte, and it exists independent of the ‘defenses' a party might either make or waive under the Federal Rules.”); Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (providing a judge may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without issuing a summons or following other procedural requirements).
The court finds Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and proposed Second Amended Complaint are frivolous. The new pleadings lack factual coherence and fail to state any recognizable legal claim for relief against the named defendants. The new pleadings also fail to cure the deficiencies identified by the court in its December 14 order regarding amendment of the complaint. As the court has already warned Plaintiff that his original pleading was frivolous, and because Plaintiff's amendment and proposed amendment to the pleading have not cured that deficiency, the court finds this action should be summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Mallard, 490 U.S. at 307-08; Ross, 493 Fed.Appx. at 406.

References: § 636
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.