United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS
GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge.
1. Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Before the Court are Plaintiff Alla Iosifovna Shuper's Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 6, 14 & 19). The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
2. Motions For Reconsideration
Also before the Court are the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 5) and the Motion to Amend the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 8). Both of these Motions pertain to the Court's November 18, 2014 Order requesting that Plaintiff either pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis in each of her docketed cases. (See Order (ECF No. 4).) In light of the Court's decision to grant Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds the requests for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 5 & 8) MOOT. The Court notes that similar motions for reconsideration were filed in each of Plaintiff's then twenty-four cases.
3. Appeal To The Chief Judge
Plaintiff Shuper has also filed an Appeal to the Chief Judge (ECF No. 9). To the extent that Plaintiff Shuper is appealing the Court's November 18, 2014 Order to the Chief Judge, there is no such right to appeal to the Chief Judge, and it is therefore DENIED. As with the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion to Amend the Motion for Reconsideration, pro se Plaintiff Shuper's Appeal to the Chief Judge was filed in each of her then twenty-four cases.
4. Change In Pro Se Filing Status
Plaintiff Shuper has also filed a Motion to Accept the Change in Pro Se Filing, thereby requesting that she be permitted to file documents manually rather than electronically (ECF No. 11). The Court GRANTS the Motion, which has also been filed in each of her cases.
5. Review Of The Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Upon the Court's review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that the case must be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Through the handwritten Complaint, Plaintiff Shuper attempts to bring a case against Avesta Housing. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Shuper became a tenant of Avesta Housing on April 9, 2011. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 1.) At that time, the Regional Manager of the complex was Christie Chamberlain, and the Asset Manager was William Kuhl. ( Id. ¶¶ 2, 3.)
Previously, Plaintiff Shuper filed a housing discrimination suit against Rebecca Chandler, John Desjardins, Peter Lewis and William Kuhl. ( Id. ¶ 4.) At that time, Kelly Hoffman was Plaintiff Shuper's attorney. (Id.) The Complaint alleges that Attorneys Hoffman and Chamberlain signed a dismissal of Plaintiff Shuper's case in state court without Plaintiff Shuper's permission because Attorney Hoffman stated that she would not handle Plaintiff Shuper's case with the IRS unless Plaintiff Shuper agreed to a dismissal of the state court action. ( Id. ¶ 5.) The Complaint alleges that Chandler was fired from Danforth Heights, a housing complex, because she received a summons from the state court. (Id.)
The Complaint alleges that after the dismissal, Chandler was hired by Avesta Housing to help Chamberlain (who was employed by both Danforth Heights and Avesta Housing) evict Plaintiff Shuper from Avesta Housing. ( Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Shuper was almost evicted. ( Id. ¶ 7.) The Complaint further alleges that in November, Plaintiff Shuper was blamed for not paying rent. ( Id. ¶ 8.)
The Complaint also alleges that two huge stones were placed next to Plaintiff Shuper's window, and that Plaintiff Shuper became so scared that she called public safety. ( Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.) Plaintiff Shuper was told by Chamberlain that the stones were part of the landscape. ( Id. ¶13; see also id. ¶ 17.) The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff Shuper was stressed because her neighbor was convicted of possession of narcotics. ( Id. ¶ 14.) Next, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff became stressed when wolf spiders appeared in her apartment, but Chamberlain told Plaintiff that they were regular spiders. ( Id. ¶¶15, 16.) The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiff saw a snake. ( Id. ¶ 18.) The Complaint alleges that the foregoing actions by Avesta ...