Source: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2012cv01504/50188/5/
Timestamp: 2014-11-22 00:08:48
Document Index: 339193810

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

MEMORANDUM for Bridgeforth v. Krikkana et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings Justia.com
> Bridgeforth v. Krikkana et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 1/15/13. (mdb)
Download PDF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE OTIS MICHAEL BRIDGEFORTH,
HARI KRIKKANA, et al.,
) Civ. Action No. 12-1504-GMS
The plaintiff, Otis Michael Bridgeforth ("Bridgeforth"), filed this lawsuit on November
20,2012, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 2.) He appears pro se and was granted permission
to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I.4.) The court now proceeds to
Named as defendants are the HSBC Bank and its employees who are located in
Wilmington, Delaware, New York, New York, and Buffalo, New York. On November 9, 2012,
Bridgeforth received a beneficiary electronic wire from a bank in London, England. He alleges
that the defendants accepted the electronic wire and then conspired to fraudulently launder and
steal the monies from him when they agreed not to deposit the electronic wire into his banking
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis
light most favorable to apro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d
Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a
1915(e)(2)(B )(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on 12(b)(6) motions.
Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell All. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The
assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to "[t]hreadbare recitals ofthe
UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and legal elements ofa
claim for relief."! Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege
Bridgeforth filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint, however,
fails to state a claim under that statute. When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege
that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and that the person who caused the
plausibility of' entitlement to relief. '" Id.
deprivation acted under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). None of the
defendants are state actors and none of them violated his constitutional rights. Finally, the
allegations are conclusory and, in this court's experience, do not state a plausible claim for relief.
Therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §