Lewis v. Superlodge Motel, No. 1:2023cv00874 - Document 9 (D. Del. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 4/24/2024. (nmf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lewis v. Superlodge Motel Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROBERT CHARLES LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. : Civil Action No. 23-874-CFC SUPERLODGE MOTEL, et al., Defendant. Robert Charles Lewis, Pittsgrove, New Jersey. Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION April12024 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com OfrJ~ CONNOLLY, Chief Judge: Plaintiff Robert Charles Lewis appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D .I. 4) The Court proceeds to screen the Complaint (D.1. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, who was residing in Delaware when he filed this action, 1 names as the sole Defendant the Superlodge Motel, located in Delaware. Plaintiff alleges that an employee charged him for a weeklong stay in a handicap accessible room, and then assigned him to a regular room, which he could not enter on account of his disability. He seeks $10 million in damages. II. LEGALSTANDARDS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F .3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (informa pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F .3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). 1 Plaintiff is currently in a rehabilitation facility in New Jersey. Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366,374 (3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed frivolous only where it relies on an "'indisputably meritless legal theory' or a 'clearly baseless' or 'fantastic or delusional' factual scenario.'" Id. The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,240 (3d Cir. 1999). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City ofShelby, 514 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 11. A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: ( 1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify 2 allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Cons tr. Corp., 809 F .3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. III. DISCUSSION This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. There is not federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff brings no federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and there is not diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because both Plaintiff and Defendant are Delaware citizens, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. This Court will issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
