IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
November 24, 2010
VICTOR VLACHOS, PLAINTIFF,
DOUGLAS M. MARINOS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. AND DOUGLAS M. MARINOS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo
The plaintiff brought this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. The plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis . (Doc. No. 2.) The Court found that the plaintiff met the requirements for proceeding in forma pauperis but sua sponte dismissed the complaint under the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. No. 3.) On reconsideration, the court granted leave to amend.*fn1 (Doc. No. 5.) The plaintiff filed a pleading styled as an "Amended Complaint," (Doc. No. 6), the body of which is identical to the initial complaint. ( Compare Doc. No. 6 with Doc. No. 1.)
Thus, the plaintiff's Amended Complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as did the initial complaint. As explained in the Court's September 21, 2010 Opinion, this complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it falls short of the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, as explained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 6). Because the plaintiff meets the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis , as explained in the Court's prior opinions, the Court will grant the plaintiff's application. (Doc. No. 2.)
NOW, this 24 th day of November, 2010, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED.
(2) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to MARK THIS CASE CLOSED.
A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge