United States District Court, D. Columbia.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Arthur Kungle, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro se, Annapolis, MD.
For Executive Officers, State Farm Insurance, Claims Department, State Farm Insurance, Defendants: Michael Jack Budow, LEAD ATTORNEY, BUDOW & NOBLE, P.C., Bethesda, MD.
REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge.
The pro se plaintiff, Arthur Kungle, Jr., brings this action against his insurance provider, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (" State Farm" ), and appears to allege that State Farm's failure to pay his insurance claim violates 42 U.S.C. § § 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986 (2012). See generally ECF No. 1; ECF No. 9; ECF No. 10. The plaintiff additionally alleges that State Farm committed criminal mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). See ECF No. 1 at 1. He seeks an award of $200,000 under his State Farm insurance policy, id. at 4 as well as an unintelligible sum for fraud to be awarded to the Adult Recovery Center of the Salvation Army in Baltimore, Maryland, the Methodist Board of Child Care, and the St. Mary's Roman
Catholic Schools, id. at 4. Currently before the Court are two of the plaintiff's filings, which the Court has construed collectively as a motion to amend his complaint, ECF No. 9; ECF No. 10, Defendant State Farm's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative to Transfer Venue, or to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted (" Def.'s Mot." ) and Defendant State Farm's Motion to Strike Docket Entries 9 and 10 (" Def.'s Mot. to Strike" ). After carefully considering the parties' submissions, the Court concludes for the reasons below that it must grant the plaintiff's pending motions to amend, deny State Farm's motion to strike, and grant State Farm's motion to dismiss.
The following factual allegations are taken from a number of filings submitted by the plaintiff to this Court which have been collectively construed as the plaintiff's complaint. Although the filings are generally unintelligible, the Court has been able to discern the following series of events, which, for the purposes of this Opinion, the Court must accept as true.
The " [p]laintiff has a homeowner's policy with State Farm Insurance," ECF No. 24 at 1, with " personal property limits [in the amount] of $249,200," ECF No. 1 at 2. " Policy [number] 20-CT-9547-8 [covers his personal property at] 8 Gentry Court, Annapolis, [Maryland,] 21403." Id. At some point in time, there was, as characterized by the plaintiff, a " heist[, presumably a theft,] at [his] abode," during which personal property was taken. Id. at 3. After the " heist," the plaintiff filed an insurance claim for $220,000 with State Farm. Id.
" [State Farm] demanded that [the] plaintiff produce photos or other records," of the property for which he was seeking reimbursement. Id. at 2. The plaintiff asserts, however, that the request " was false [and] fraudulent" because State Farm agents " took pictures after each heist," id., and that he provided State Farm with " records from Trover bookstore . . . [and] other info[rmation] from 105 different stores around the world." Id. The plaintiff further alleges that representatives of State Farm " met with counsel [and] were given receipts for book purchases [at] Trover [and] other bookstores."  ECF No.
24 at 1. This meeting took place " in the office of [the plaintiff's] then counselor, Tom Hennessy," in Annapolis, Maryland, ECF No. 29-1 at 1. The plaintiff further alleges that State Farm " lost or destroyed [this] evidence." ECF No. 1 at 3.
On November 11, 2013, this Court granted the plaintiff leave to file two additional filings which the Court construed as motions to amend his complaint to include allegations that because he " is maternally descended from both the Creek [and] Powhattan,"  State Farm " does not want to pay [him for his claim] due to [its] historic racial bias." ECF No. 9 at 1. He further alleges that " [s]enior State Farm folks knew [that] lower staff conspired to deny [him] payments [and] federal civil rights," and that State Farm " violated federal mail fraud laws by demanding photos of lost stuff [and] records." ECF No. 10 at 1. State Farm has now moved to strike these amended filings, to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue, or to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See generally Def.'s Mot. to Strike; Def.'s Mot.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Consideration of Pro Se Pleadings
The pleadings of pro se parties are to be " liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). However, even though a pro se complaint must be construed liberally, the complaint must still " present a claim on which the Court can grant relief." Chandler v. Roche, 215 ...