United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MARIAN A. BLOCKER, Plaintiff,
REPUTATION.COM; SPOKEO.COM; TYLER STAMPFLI; WELL FARGO, N.A.; U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI; CITY OF TUPELO; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; TUPELO POLICE DEPARTMENT; LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE; LIFE LOCK; FT. COLLINS, COLORADO POLICE DEPARTMENT; FEDERAL JUDGES OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, Defendants.
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN, Senior District Judge.
This case is presently before the court on plaintiff Marian Blocker's In Forma Pauperis Affidavit, (doc. 2),  which the court deems to be Blocker's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and for appointment of an attorney. For the reasons set forth below, Blocker's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and for Appointment of an Attorney is due to be denied and this case will be dismissed with prejudice.
Blocker has filed a General Complaint Form for Pro Se Litigants, (doc. 1), in which she alleges:
I went to all mentioned and listed parties for aid [and] assistance [and] wasn't helped [with] everything being "flipped" ending in my being charged [with] felony fraud and false pretenses. All of this stemmed from hacking/theft of information by [defendant] Stampfli [with defendant] Wells Fargo knowing about everything [and] doing nothing. Reports were [filed] with Tupelo [Police Department], Lifelock, [Mississippi Attorney General's] Office, FBI, FTC [and] FCC [with] nothing being done as well as [with] Ft. Collins [Police Department] Financial Crimes [Division]. Tupelo [District Attorney's] Office used said stolen materials to illegally charge [and] extort [money] out of myself [with] the aid of [Tupelo Police Department] Det. McKinney [and] all [four] Circuit Judges.
(Doc. 1 at 3.) Blocker asserts that defendants are incorporated in "MS, AL, CA, CO, AZ, " and refers the court to her attachments and enclosures, ( id. at 1), which total 346 pages, ( see docs. 1-1 to 1-40; see also docs. 3-1 to 3-3 [adding an additional 54 pages of exhibits]).
As part of her "attachments and enclosures" Blocker included a report from Detective Daniel McKinney of the Tupelo Police Department, which describes the following incident underlying this case:
On 2/27/2013 Tyler Stampfli deposited $1350.00 in the account of Marian Blocker. Tyler believed he was purchasing a radio. The website that he attempted to [buy] the radio from was a fictitious site. The person he was communicating with about the radio requested he transfer the money into an account with the account number, routing number and name of Marian Blocker. After transferring the money the item was never received by Stampfli. Contact was made between Stampfli and Blocker with Blocker admitting to receiving the money. She claims that she was "hacked". Blocker also admitted to spending the money. I made contact with Blocker via phone and she also advised me that she did receive the money but did not know where the money was from. I informed her that funds were placed into her account by fraudulent transactions and I requested that she return the money to Tyler. She has refused to return the money.
(Doc. 1-10 at 8 [footnote added].)
Section § 1915(e)(2) requires the court to screen complaints before granting leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. It states:
[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal-
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may ...