Opinion
2:21-cv-1152-NR
01-06-2022
LINDA ANN WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
J. NICHOLAS RANJAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Linda Ann Wright, proceeding pro se, brings a variety of claims against a host-hundreds-of defendants. During a status conference on December 1, 2021, Ms. Wright moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court determined that Ms. Wright sufficiently showed that her financial conditions warrant in forma pauperis status, so the Court granted Ms. Wright's request. ECF 21.
Ms. Wright filed a related case at case number 2:21-cv-713. During the December 1, 2021, status conference, Ms. Wright agreed that this related case was virtually identical, and redundant, to the present case. With the parties' consent, the Court therefore closed the case, and ordered that all parties were to proceed in the present case only.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), however, the Court must dismiss the case if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court has no doubt that Ms. Wright feels sincerely and strongly about her case. Nonetheless, after carefully reviewing Ms. Wright's allegations, the Court must dismiss her claims.
Ms. Wright has filed a number of complaints in this case, most of which appear largely identical in all material respects. Most recently, Ms. Wright filed several amended complaints on November 30 - December 2, 2021. ECF 17; ECF 23; ECF 24. These operative complaint(s) appear identical and bring the same claims and allegations-the sole material difference is the addition of named defendants in the docket entries. The Court considered all three filings, and construed Ms. Wright's pro se filings liberally as required.
This is also far from Ms. Wright's first attempt seeking relief through the federal courts. Previously, as noted below, Ms. Wright filed similar suits in federal court in California and Texas, seeking justice. Leagues away, now in Pennsylvania, she again brings suit in federal court.
The Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate, as Ms. Wright's claims suffer from a range of fatal deficiencies. Most obvious is that Ms. Wright's complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. To begin with, there are no factual allegations regarding many of the named defendants. Further, Ms. Wright's claims and allegations are not discernible under the law, and despite filing numerous amended complaints in both this and the related case, the incoherency remains. As a result, the Court determines that any further amendment would be futile. Dismissal with prejudice is thus appropriate. See Gibson v. Susquehanna Township Auth., 2021 WL 5768472, at *2 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2021) (per curiam) (“[T]he District Court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in dismissing the complaint without providing [Plaintiff] an opportunity to amend, because amendment would have indeed been futile.” (citation omitted)); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court[.]” (cleaned up)).
More specific obstacles also apply. For example, to the extent Ms. Wright seeks to review or challenge veterans' benefits determinations, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. 38 U.S.C. § 511(a); Ibrahim v. U.S. Dep't of VA, 779 Fed.Appx. 1010, 1011 (Mem.) (3d Cir. 2019). Moreover, res judicata bars other of her claims. That is, Ms. Wright previously filed similar actions in federal court in California and Texas, bringing the same claims against many of the same defendants here as in those cases. And as the courts in California and Texas already laid out, Ms. Wright cannot re-litigate these already-adjudicated claims. See Wright v. United States of America et al., No. 3:14-cv-3008, Dkt. No. 184 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2015); Wright v. United States of America et al., No. 2:15-cv-214, Dkt. No. 126 (N.D. Tex. March 16, 2016). What's more, as the court stated in Ms. Wright's case in the Northern District of Texas, Ms. Wright cannot bring private, civil claims under the criminal code, as she again tries to do here. See Wright, No. 2:15-cv-214, Dkt. No. 126, p. 10 (N.D. Tex. March 16, 2016).
The applicable statute of limitations is also a bar to Ms. Wright's claims. Many of her alleged injuries and allegations date back several decades. More recently, however, Ms. Wright alleges that she suffered various injuries in 2018, after she moved to Pennsylvania. To the extent any tort claims are based on these injuries in Pennsylvania in 2018, the applicable two-year statute of limitations period bars the claims, see 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524, as Ms. Wright did not bring suit until August 2021.The same holds true for any of Ms. Wright's constitutional or statutory claims that occurred in 2018 in Pennsylvania (i.e., the claims not previously adjudicated in California and Texas federal courts). See Ke v. Ass'n of Pa. State College & Univ. Faculties, 447 Fed.Appx. 424, 425-26 (3d Cir. 2011) (explaining that the statute of limitations period in Pennsylvania is two years for Section 1981 claims that could have been brought under the pre-1990 version of Section 1981); Tearpock-Martini v. Borough of Shickshinny, 756 F.3d 232, 235 (3d Cir. 2014) (stating that the statute of limitations period in Pennsylvania for any claim required to be brought under Section 1983 is two years); Lloyd v. Ocean Twp. Counsel, 857 Fed.Appx. 61, 64 (3d Cir. 2021) (“Claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 are subject to the same limitations period as section 1983 claims.” (cleaned up)).
Further, as relevant here, California imposes a two- or three-year statute of limitations period. See Cal. Civ. Pro. §§ 335.1 & 338. It appears that Ms. Wright's alleged personal injuries arising in California occurred in January 2018, and are thus untimely under California's statute of limitations period also. And as already noted, these claims are likewise untimely under Pennsylvania's two-year limitations period. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524.
For all of these reasons, then, Ms. Wright's claims must be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While Ms. Wright has zealously and admirably pursued her claims over the many years, her legal claims fall short, and it may be time for her to reconsider pursuing federal-court litigation as a means to address her many years of grievances. As several other esteemed federal judges have recently said:
This is not to mention the issues of immunity that attach to some defendants, the lack of diversity jurisdiction as to some defendants, and the failure to exhaust any administrative remedies.
[Ms. Wright] clearly has grievances. [S]he believes that [s]he has been wronged by numerous individuals and entities across decades. … But the Court is not the Justice League. It cannot swoop in and address wrongs, real or perceived, wherever they appear. It is, instead, a court of limited jurisdiction that can only hear defined categories of cases.Martin v. Coca Cola Consol., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-323, 2020 WL 5548690, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 16, 2020) (Brady, J.); Lindsay v. State of Colorado, No. 21-468, 12/16/2021 Order, p. 6 (D. Neb. Dec. 16, 2021) (Buescher, J.).
Accordingly, this 6th day of January, 2022, Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall hereby mark this case as CLOSED. 5