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.

Liggon-Redding v. American Securities

May 16, 2007

E. LIGGON-REDDING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMERICAN SECURITIES, INS. AND NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edwin M. Kosik United States District Judge

(JUDGE KOSIK)

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is E. Liggon-Redding's (hereinafter "Plaintiff") complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1 & 2). For the reasons that follow we will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and close this case.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this district against the above defendants asserting claims of breach of contract. That case was docketed under the number 06-cv-227. The facts of that case are set forth in a Memorandum and Order issued by Judge James M. Munley on January 31, 2006. Plaintiff's first action against the defendants noted that Plaintiff's home was destroyed in a fire. Plaintiff's insurer was defendant, American Securities Ins. Company, and defendant, National City Mortgage, serviced Plaintiff's mortgage. Plaintiff claimed that American Securities issued a check in the amount of $39,281.23 for the loss of her home. Defendant, National City Mortgage, agreed to accept that amount in satisfaction of the mortgage. According to Plaintiff, American Securities then paid National City Mortgage a total of $87,992.49. Plaintiff sought damages from National City Mortgage for the difference between those two amounts, roughly $48,000.00. She also requested damages from American Securities totaling roughly $60,000.00. That sum represented the remaining amount of insurance coverage on the home after the payment to National City Mortgage.

On January 31, 2006, Judge Munley dismissed Plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, Judge Munley held that Plaintiff's claims against each defendant did not exceed $75,000.00, the amount in controversy necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit on March 2, 2006. Plaintiff subsequently wrote a letter to Judge Munley on May 11, 2006. In that correspondence, Plaintiff related that she had been sued by Penn Forrest Township in the Court of Common Pleas for Carbon County. The township sought to have the fire damaged building declared a nuisance and to force Plaintiff to demolish the structure. Plaintiff further noted that she had unsuccessfully attempted to join American Securities Insurance and National City Mortgage as third party defendants in that case.

Plaintiff has now filed a second action, apparently arising out of the same events that served as the basis for the earlier breach of contract suit. We are uncertain as to the status of Plaintiff's appeal in the initial case. Plaintiff filed the instant action, pro se,on May 9, 2007. She cites to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1984 (RICO), as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges only that "American Security Insurance Company and National City Mortgage conspired and are in collusion to deprive plaintiff of the proceeds of her fire insurance money." (See Complaint, Doc. 1). Plaintiff also requests that this court appoint "pro bono counsel." Id. Plaintiff additionally filed a motion for leave to proceed to in forma pauperis.

II. DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C.A. §1915(e)(2) provides that a court may sua sponte dismiss a case filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis under certain conditions. The section states as follows:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the 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 ...


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.