United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (DOC. 10)
William I. Arbuckle U.S. Magistrate Judge
Sara Smith initiated this action by filing a complaint, (Doc.
1), and an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
(Doc. 2). Presently before the Court is Ms. Smith's
Second Amended Complaint filed in response to an Order from
United States District Court Judge A. Richard Caputo, (Doc.
9), granting her leave to file an amended complaint to cure
the defects in her First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 7).
reasons discussed herein, I RECOMMEND that Ms. Smith's
Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 10), be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The
factual allegations stated in Ms. Smith's original
Complaint, (Doc. 1), underlying Ms. Smith's claim are as
Shop Rite and its owner fail[sic] to maintain and or provide
a safe invironment[sic] for me to shop, caused me to fall and
injure myself to the point that I needed an
operation to recover from pain.
(Doc. 1 p. 4) (emphasis in original). Ms. Smith also alleges
that the Shop Rite at issue is located in Stroudsburg
Pennsylvania, but does not identify when she allegedly fell
or what specific injuries she sustained.
August 4, 2017, I granted Ms. Smith's application to
proceed in forma pauperis, and issued a Screening
Order regarding her original Complaint. (Doc. 5). In my
order, I explained that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over Ms. Smith's claim as pleaded and
directed Ms. Smith to file an amended complaint. Id.
Despite being granted leave to file an amended complaint, Ms.
Smith failed to do so by the deadline. Accordingly, on
September 6, 2017, I submitted a Report to Judge Caputo
recommending Ms. Smith's original Complaint be dismissed.
September 11, 2017, Ms. Smith submitted an Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 7). On October 4, 2017, Judge Caputo adopted my
Recommendation of September 6, 2017, thus dismissing Ms.
Smith's Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (Doc. 9). However, Judge Caputo granted Ms.
Smith twenty-eight (28) days to submit a second amended
complaint. Id. Therein, Judge Caputo specifically
explained the minimum requirements to establish subject
matter jurisdiction based upon diversity. (Doc. 9, pp. 2-3).
October 23, 2017, Ms. Smith filed her Second Amended
Complaint, (Doc. 10), along with her original Complaint as an
exhibit. (Doc. 10-1). She added the following factual
On Jun[e] 24, 2016 at about: pm [sic] I was shop[p]ing and
was about to pay when I slip[p]ed on something and fell at
the regester [sic] area hurting my back and required a[n]
operation for releaf [sic] of pain. I was with my daughter
Yolanda Y. Smith who lives as - 164 Cambridge Rd[., ] Pine
Ridge[, ] PA[.]
(Doc. 10, p. 3). She lists “PA” as the
Plaintiff's state of citizenship and “New
Jersey” as the Defendant's state of citizenship.
Id. She further lists “51 Third Ave[., ]
Stroughburg [sic] [, ] ¶ 18360” as the location
where the events giving rise to claim occurred. Id.
However, she lists only a single defendant: Shop Rite,
Village Supermarket in Springfield, New Jersey. (Doc. 10, p.
4). Further, under the “Basis for Jurisdiction”
section of her Second Amended Complaint, she has circled
“Diversity of Citizenship” but appears to have
cited a series of federal rules and cases as support for
Federal Question jurisdiction. (Doc. 10, p. 4, § II).
consideration of this Second Amended Complaint, along with
her previous submissions to this Court, I recommend that the
Second Amended Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SCREENING IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINTS
Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary
review of prose complaints brought by
litigants given leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Specifically, I am obliged to review the complaint in