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.

Jones v. Manpower, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

June 10, 2014

ANTHONY DWANN JONES, Plaintiff
v.
MANPOWER, INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THOMAS M. BLEWITT, Magistrate Judge.

I. Background.

On June 5, 2014, Plaintiff, Anthony Dwann Jones, a resident of 1823 North Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17103, filed, pro se, a form 2-page Complaint with Exhibits attached. (Docs. 1 & 1-2, pp. 1-6).

In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that his employment with Defendant Manpower, Inc. ("Manpower"), in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, ended sometime in 2007, after he sustained an injury. Plaintiff claims he then moved to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and never subsequently worked for Manpower. (Doc. 1, p. 2). However, Plaintiff alleges that after his injury, his application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") was denied twice on the erroneous basis that he was still employed with Manpower, even though he claims he was not employed by Manpower when he filed his SSI applications. In addition, Plaintiff claims the IRS sent him a letter in 2012, stating that somebody had filed, presumably a tax return, under his name and Social Security number. On April 15, 2014, Plaintiff alleges that his food stamps were "cut" because Defendant Manpower sent a work statement stating he was still employed by it. Plaintiff also avers that the Dauphin County Assistance Office called Defendant Manpower on his behalf, and that Manpower claimed there was a clerical error. Plaintiff further states that he has documentation regarding the wages earned by the client of Defendant Manpower who Manpower allowed to use his identity from May 26, 2013, to March 9, 2014. ( Id. ).

Plaintiff's Exhibits attached to his Complaint (Doc. 1-2) include a May 22, 2014, response from the PA Attorney General's Office ("AG"), Bureau of Consumer Protection, to Plaintiff's complaint filed with the AG against Defendant Manpower. The AG basically stated that the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") was the agency with primary jurisdiction over Plaintiff's matter and stated that Plaintiff's Complaint was forwarded to the FTC. Plaintiff's Exhibits also include a May 1, 2014, Identity Theft Information Report from the Harrisburg Bureau of Police stating that it is an official letter providing notice that Plaintiff has been the victim of identity theft. Finally, Plaintiff's Exhibits include a March 11, 2014, Verification of Social Services indicating that Plaintiff was employed by Manpower, as a temporary worker, from April 30, 2004, through March 9, 2014. The Verification form also listed a history of pay periods Plaintiff appeared to have worked for Manpower from May 20, 2007, through October 28, 2007, and from May 26, 2013, through March 9, 2014. However, Plaintiff indicated on the Verification form that he actually worked for Manpower only from May 20, 2007, through October 28, 2007. Plaintiff indicated that whom ever was working for Manpower under his name and Social Security number from May 26, 2013, through March 9, 2014, was not him. Plaintiff further indicated on the Verification form that the wages earned in 2007 was for the time he actually worked for Manpower, but that he did not work for Manpower with respect to the wages earned for 2013.

In is Complaint, Plaintiff indicates he is seeking restitution damages in the amount of ten million dollars ($10, 000, 000) from Defendant Manpower for identity theft and identity fraud, and breach of contract. As stated, Plaintiff essentially avers that Defendant Manpower knowingly allowed one of its clients to work under his identity. Plaintiff has not stated any specific federal statutes or state laws which Defendant Manpower has allegedly violated. It appears that Plaintiff is invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 since he states that he is a Pennsylvania citizen and that Defendant Manpower is located in Milwaukee, WI. ( See Doc. 1-1).

As stated, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. In addition, Plaintiff has filed an Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff indicated that he is homeless and has no assets.

II. Screening Plaintiff's Complaint

Since Plaintiff filed an Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, we can screen his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See Henry v. Harrisburg Police Dept., Civil No. 1:13-CV-2740, M.D.Pa. ("[T]he screening requirements articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) apply with equal force to poisoner and civilian litigants alike.").

III. Discussion.

We find that Plaintiff's 2-page, handwritten form Complaint is deficient. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). Plaintiff's Complaint has not yet been served on Defendant Manpower and the Court has not yet ruled on his Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. As mentioned, Plaintiff appears to allege that this Court has jurisdiction over his case under diversity of citizenship.

Plaintiff states that his claims against Defendant Manpower are for identity theft, identity fraud, and breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks $10 million in damages against Manpower for "noingly (sic) [knowingly] and willingly allowing a client to work under [his] personal information." ( Id., p. 2).

Plaintiff's first claim is for identity theft and identity fraud. Since Plaintiff does not cite to any federal or state statutes with respect to his claims, it appears that Plaintiff may be alleging a violation of a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028, regarding fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information. However, we find that "[t]here is no civil action component included in 18 U.S.C. § 1028 regarding crimes involving fraudulent identification documents." Talley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 2009 WL 901126, *4 (D.N.J. 2009).[1] We find that Plaintiff's Complaint lacks sufficient allegations as to Defendant Manpower and what this Defendant did to violate any applicable federal statutes under which Plaintiff has a private right of action.

Plaintiff may also be trying to assert a claim of identity theft against Defendant Manpower under PA state law. In Eagle v. Morgan, 2013 WL 943350, *9 ...


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.