Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-594 (MLC).
March 16, 2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THE PLAINTIFF — Kenneth Hinton — applying to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("Application") (dkt. entry no. 1, Application); and the Court, based upon Hinton's assertions in support thereof, intending to (1) grant the Application, and (2) direct the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint; and
IT APPEARING that the Court may (1) review a complaint, and (2) dismiss it sua sponte if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); and Hinton, who is pro se, asserting in a rambling, eighteen-page complaint that (1) the defendant processes credit card transactions, (2) his credit union notified him that his credit information was compromised in a mass data breach of the defendant's electronic records ("Breach"), and (3) he is entitled to recover $250,000 for "loss of wages and business income" and "increased risk of fraud and identity theft" (dkt. entry no. 1, Compl. at 1-5, 11); and it appearing the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because (1) Hinton is a citizen of Virginia, and (2) the defendant is deemed to be a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey (id. at 5); and
THE COURT construing this pro se pleading liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and "accept[ing] as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view[ing] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff", Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997); but it appearing that the Court need not credit bald assertions or legal conclusions, id.; and
HINTON failing to assert that a third party has actually used his credit information to either open a credit card account or otherwise secure a fraudulent benefit at his expense; and Hinton merely speculating as to a loss of wages or business income, as he is proceeding in forma pauperis and lists himself as unemployed and homeless (see Application at 1-2); and Hinton failing to assert that he has suffered an actual injury due to the Breach; and it appearing that a plaintiff in federal court must demonstrate "(1) a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, injury in fact; (2) a causal link between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) that a favorable ruling would redress the injury", Hill v. Nassberg, 166 Fed.Appx. 608, 609 (3d Cir. 2006); and Hinton failing to assert that he has suffered an actual or imminent injury in fact, see Randolph v. ING Life Ins. Annuity Co., 486 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2007) (stating claims similar to those here "amount to mere speculation that at some unspecified point in the indefinite future [plaintiffs] will be the victims of identity theft"); Giordano v. Wachovia Secs., No. 06-476, 2006 WL 2177036, at *4 (D.N.J. July 31, 2006) (stating similar claims "at best, are speculative and hypothetical future injuries"); and it appearing that Hinton's allegations of injuries amount to nothing more than mere speculation; and
For instance, in support of a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Hinton does not cite a specific provision thereunder giving rise to a cause of action. He merely asserts that he is a "consumer", and that the statute "is, by its terms, a cumulative remedy, such that remedies under its provisions can be awarded in addition to those provided under separate statutory schemes". (Compl. at 12.)
THE COURT intending to dismiss the Complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim; and for good cause appearing, the Court will issue an appropriate Order and Judgment.
Hinton is no stranger to federal civil litigation. See, e.g.,Hinton v. Trans Union LLC, E.D. Va. No. 09-170 (filed 2-12-09);Hinton v. Peanut Corp. of Am., W.D. Va. No. 09-10 (filed 2-10-09); Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of Am., D.D.C. No. 08-1266 (filed 7-23-08); Hinton v. Rudasill, D.D.C. No. 08-1073 (filed 6-23-08); Hinton v. Bangs, E.D. Va. No. 08-628 (filed 6-17-08);Hinton v. Hearns, E.D. Va. No. 08-608 (filed 6-11-08); Hinton v. Rudasill, D. Md. No. 08-1460 (filed 6-4-08).