Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Romig v. Comcast Cable

United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

March 26, 2014

DALE LAWRENCE ROMIG, Plaintiff,
v.
COMCAST CABLE, Defendant.

ORDER OF COURT RE: PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 1)

Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge

Presently before this Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint. Doc. No. 1.[1] Plaintiff has paid the mandatory filing fee. Doc. No. 1-2. Plaintiff names Comcast Cable as the Defendant. Id. His sole allegations are as follows:

In late January 2013, I requested Comcast to block all the pornography on my cable box. On 02/01/2013, a Comcast service technician came to my house to make some adjustments. When he left he said all the pornography channels had been blocked permanently. Something went wrong with his adjustments. The blocked channels remained blocked only for 24 hours. I suspect this negligence was intentional. Doc. No. 1, ¶ 3.

Plaintiff demands “$500, 000, 000.00” as relief. Doc. No. 1.

As pled, Plaintiff’s Complaint details a customer service dispute. The Court does not have jurisdiction over such matters. Federal Courts require notice pleading, as opposed to the heightened standard of fact pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires only “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds on which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). As currently pled, Plaintiff’s factual averments are not sufficient to advance a federal claim.

A District Court may dismiss a paid complaint sua sponte when appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Schneller ex rel Schneller v. Fox Subacute at Clara Burke, 317 Fed.Appx. 135, 138 (3d Cir. 2008), Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 196 & n.8 (3d Cir. 1990).

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2014, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before April 14, 2014. Said Complaint will be screened by the Court for compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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