Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reyes v. State of Tennessee Dep't of Human Resources

June 5, 2007

JACKIE LYNN REYES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

VARLAN/SHIRLEY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The undersigned files this Report and Recommendation for the District Judge to whom the case is assigned.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), the district court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).*fn1

Plaintiff has filed a form "COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF." [Doc. 1-3]. The claims and allegations therein are unintelligble and devoid of any coherent legal or factual grounds. From this Complaint, it is impossible for the undersigned to determine the nature of any "federal claim" being made or the legal or factual basis for any such "federal claim." Plaintiff cites as a jurisdictional basis 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), but the only alleged federal claim or relief sought is the request to mandate the U.S. Attorney to "perform his duties pursuant to federal law." However, exactly what acts the plaintiff wants the U.S. Attorney to do is impossible to determine. At best it appears that the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with their bankruptcy proceedings and contend some type of conspiracy to defraud exists, though the elements of such have not been shown through the pleadings. Plaintiff apparently seeks injunctive relief for certain alleged matters that are related to state law (eviction from her residence [¶ 11], and failure of State Department of Human Resources to pay her rightful benefits [¶ 12].

It does not appear that Plaintiff's Complaint states any legally cognizable claim under the Constitution or under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal statute. Plaintiff does not appear to state any violation of any federal constitutional or statutory rights. Certainly, none can be deciphered from the pleadings by the undersigned.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Complaint be DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous, for failure to state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted, but without prejudice to the plaintiff's rights to re-file here or to file claims in State Court. This Complaint lacks any arguable basis for a recovery in Federal Court. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.

This matter is to be presented to a District Judge pursuant to this Report and Recommendation under the authority of Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 263 (6th Cir. 1990), wherein the Court states that such matters proceed automatically to a district judge for examination of the complaint after a magistrate judge has granted the petition to proceed in forma pauperis.*fn2

Respectfully ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.