Opinion
Action No. 3:08-CV-278.
October 30, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own Motion. For the following reasons, the Court will DISMISS the case for failure to state a claim.
I. Background
Marvin J. Brown filed a Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) on May 6, 2008. The Court granted the Motion (Docket No. 2) on May 7, 2008. In his initial Complaint (Docket No. 3), Plaintiff alleged extortion and racial discrimination perpetrated against him by Defendant, Alan Gropper, DDS. A Summons was returned executed on May 19, 2008 (Docket No. 7).
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 5) on May 15, 2008 in which Plaintiff alleged Defendant had harassed and intimidated him in violation of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the "UDHR") and removed allegations relating to extortion and racial discrimination. Plaintiff attached a letter dated May 14, 2008 (the "May Letter") Defendant had written to him regarding the lease of 700 N. Nansemond Street, #2N, Richmond, VA 23221, where Plaintiff lived. Although a second Summons was returned executed on May 19, 2008 (Docket No. 8), Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading by June 9, 2008, as required by the Summons.
Among other things, the May Letter stated (1) Plaintiff's lease expired as of July 31, 2008; (2) Defendant desired notification as to whether Plaintiff intended to renew the lease; and (3) three options from which Plaintiff could choose if he intended to renew the lease. (See Ex. 1, Letter Dated May 14, 2008.) The three options given included: (1) agreement to have a direct deposit of social security benefits to an account at Wachovia such that there could be automatic transfer to Defendant's account, with any rent amount still outstanding to be paid by the fifth of each month; (2) present Defendant with a benefit statement demonstrating social security benefits would cover the rent without dependence on other income sources; or (3) written verification that a third party would be paying the rent. (See id.)
Defendant, however, did submit to the Court a copy of a letter addressed to Plaintiff, dated June 24, 2008 (Docket No. 9) (the "June Letter"). The June Letter stated, among other things, (1) Defendant was responding to the civil suit Plaintiff had filed against him; (2) Plaintiff had been delinquent in paying rent over the prior two years; (3) Plaintiff had informed Defendant that agencies that had formerly paid the rent would no longer do so; (4) Plaintiff had not agreed to any of the options Defendant proposed in the May Letter to assure rent would be paid going forward; (5) Defendant had not attempted to open a Wachovia bank account in Plaintiff's name, as alleged in the Amended Complaint (See Am. Compl. at 1); (6) refuting any harassment and instead claiming being extremely accommodating toward Plaintiff; and (7) certifying service on Plaintiff on June 26, 2008. (See Letter Dated June 24, 2008.) There has been no further action by either of the pro se parties since the June Letter.
Apparently, Defendant believed Plaintiff had legal representation with regard to the rent dispute. (See Letter Dated June 24, 2008 ("In my conversation with your attorney, she said that she tried to explain to you that I was not making an unreasonable offer.").)
II. Discussion
This case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Where a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court may "dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). In the Amended Complaint, the UDHR survives as the sole basis for Plaintiff's claim to relief. Dispositively, the Supreme Court has counseled that "the [UDHR] does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004) (holding Plaintiff's claim based on the Declaration was not cognizable basis for cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350); see also Guaylupo-Moya v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 121, 133 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding the UDHR does create independent, privately-enforceable rights); Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 259 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding the UDHR does not create any rights secured by federal law). Thus, Plaintiff in the instant case "cannot say that the [UDHR] . . . establish[es any] relevant and applicable rule of international law" upon which his claim could be based. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 734.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing, the Court will DISMISS the case. It will be SO ORDERED.