Amended Complaint — Natasha Collins v. Small Business Administration (Dkt. 7, E.D. Pa.)

Summary

A pro se amended complaint by Natasha Collins for Homestyle Bakery against the Small Business Administration (SBA) Restaurant Revitalization Fund, filed 02/08/23 as Document 7 in Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It is submitted on the court's form complaint, with the box for federal question jurisdiction checked. The form carries the plaintiff's declaration under penalty of perjury that its contents are true and correct. The filing attaches copies of the court's Order (Document 6) and Memorandum (Document 5) of January 6, 2023, which dismissed the original complaint without prejudice and set out the plaintiff's claim that a $550,430.04 grant application was denied.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP Document7 Filed 02/08/23 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(Homestyle Ba hecy)

/

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s).)

(SBA) Kestauraa

(n the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). Hyou
cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided,
please write “see atiached” in the space above and attach an
additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names
listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained in
Part I. Addresses should not be included here.)

I. Parties in this complaint:

A. List your name, address and telephone number. If you are presently in custody, include your identification
number and the name and address of your current place of confinement. Do the same for any additional
plaintiffs named. Attach additional sheets of paper.as necessary.

COMPLAINT

Jury Trial: 00 Yes Wo

(check one)

Street Address Cn

County, City Philadel (Dhtic-

State & Zip Code Zi A

Telephone Number ( Al?) sq { -O 2 25

Rev. 10/2009
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP Document7. Filed 02/08/23 Page 2 of 19

B. List all defendants. You should state the full name of the defendants, even if that defendant is a government
agency, an organization, a corporation, or an individual. Include the address where each defendant can be
served. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the above caption.

Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Pe. ches Lia d. 7

Street Address U f <t+

©

State & Zip Code OU

Defendant No. 2 Name
Street Address
County, City
State & Zip Code

Defendant No. 3 Name
Street Address
County, City
State & Zip Code

Defendant No. 4 Name
Street Address

County, City
State & Zip Code

Il. Basis for Jurisdiction:

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Only two types of cases can be heard in federal court: cases
involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a
case involving the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1332, a case in which a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state and the amount in damages is more than
$75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case.

A. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction? (check all that apply)
XK Federal Questions Q Diversity of Citizenship

B. If the basis for jurisdiction is Federal Question, what federal Constitutional, statutory or treaty right is at
issue? :

Rev. 10/2009 -2-
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP. Document7 — Filed 02/08/23. Page 3 of 19

Iv. Injuries:

If you sustained injuries related to the events alleged above, describe them and state what medical treatment, if any,
you To. and received. Th Oo LOtQALK eS i CL) yo A

Vv. Relief:

State what you want the Court to do for you and the amount of monetary compensation, if any, you are seeking, and

the basis for such compensation.

a om eA:

Rev. 10/2009 -4-
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP. Document7 Filed 02/08/23 Page 4 of 19

Cc. If the basis for jurisdiction is Diversity of Citizenship, what is the state of citizenship of each party?

Defendant(s) state(s) of citizenship Was \n ney bon , Te ae.

Ii. Statement of Claim:

State as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each of the defendants named in the caption of this
complaint is involved in this action, along with the dates and locations of all relevant events. You may wish to
include further details such as the names of other persons involved in the events giving rise to your claims. Do not
cite any cases or statutes. If you intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim ina
separate paragraph. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary.

A. Where did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?

B. What date and approximate time did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?

What Cc. Facts: “To () + h Pin CAS
\ Acparaan RRE 13 suppnse ty OQVide My busineZs
jppened? Cy

Rev. 10/2009
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP. Document? Filed 02/08/23 Page 5 of 19

| declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this gard day of Febrwacy 520 23.

Signature of Plaintiff flactpala. (ele

Mailing Address

Telephone Number (261) & 54 \ - oe

Fax Number (if'you have one)

Note: All plaintiffs named in the caption of the complaint must date and sign the complaint. Prisoners must also
provide their inmate numbers, present place of confinement, and address.

For Prisoners:

I declare under penalty of perjury that on this day of ; , 20 ; Lam delivering
this complaint to prison authorities to be mailed to the Clerk’s Office of the United States District Court for the
Eastern ‘District of Pennsylvania.

Signature of Plaintiff:

Inmate Number

Rev. 10/2009 ~5-
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP. Document 7 — Filed 02/08/23 Page 6 of 19
Case 2:22-cv-04104-GAM. Document 6 Filed 01/06/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATASHA COLLINS,
Plaintiff,

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-CV-4104

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION :
(SBA) RESTAURANT :
REVITALIZATION FUND,

Defendant.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6" day of January, 2023, upon consideration of Plaintiff Natasha
Collins’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECE_No. 4), and pro se Complaint (ECF No. 1)
it is ORDERED that:

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28U.S.C.§ 1915. —

2. The Complaint is DEEMED filed.

3. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated
in the Court’s Memorandum.

4. Ms. Collins may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of
this Order. Any amended complaint must identify all defendants in the caption of the amended
complaint in addition to identifying them in the body of the amended complaint and shall state
the basis for Collins’s claims against each defendant. The amended complaint shall be a
complete document that does not rely on the initial Complaint or other papers filed in this case to
state a claim. When drafting her amended complaint, Collins should be mindful of the Court’s

reasons for dismissing the claims in her initial Complaint as explained in the Court’s
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP Document 7. Filed 02/08/23 Page 7 of 19

Memorandum. Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until

so ORDERED by the Court.

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Collins a blank copy of this Court’s
form complaint bearing the above-captioned civil action number. Ms. Collins may use this form
to file her amended complaint if she chooses to do so.!

6. If Ms. Collins does not wish to amend and instead intends to stand on her
submission as originally filed, she may file a notice with the Court within thirty (30) days of the
date of this Order stating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing
the case. Any such notice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the
civil action number for this case. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019) (“If the
plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court
asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would

be appropriate.” (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532. F.2d 950, 951 n.1 3d Cir. 1976))); In re

Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703-04 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding “that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with prejudice the otherwise viable claims...
following plaintiffs’ decision not to replead those claims” when the district court “expressly
warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would result in the dismissal of
those claims”).

7. If Ms. Collins fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that

Collins intends to stand on her Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.* See

1 This form is available on the Court’s website at
https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/forms/frmegenf. pdf.

2 The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d
863 (3d Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiff's intention to stand on

2
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP © Document 7. Filed 02/08/23 Page 8 of 19

Weber, 939 F.3d at 239-40 (explaining that a plaintiff's intent to stand on his complaint may be

inferred from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a defective

complaint).
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh

GERALD A. MCHUGH, J.

her complaint. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (treating the “stand on the complaint”
doctrine as distinct from dismissals under ral Rul ivi] Pr re 41(b) for failure to
comply with a court order, which require assessment of the Poulis factors); see also Elansari v.
Altria, 799 FE. App’x 107, 108 n.1 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Indeed, an analysis under Poulis
is not required when a plaintiff willfully abandons the case or makes adjudication impossible, as
would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend her complaint, leaving the case without an
operative pleading. See Dickens v. Danberg, 700 F. App’x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
(“Where a plaintiff's conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or
where the plaintiff's behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the case impossible,
a balancing of the Poulis factors is not necessary.”); Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt., Inc.,
292 E.R.D. 171, 175 (D.N.J. 2013) (“{T]he Court need not engage in an analysis of the

six Poulis factors in cases where a party willfully abandons her case or otherwise makes
adjudication of the matter impossible.” (citing cases)).

3
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP . Document 7 Filed 02/08/23. Page 9 of 19

Important Privacy Notice

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 prohibits litigants in a non-habeas proceeding from
submitting documents that contain personal information. Unless the Court orders otherwise,
personal identifying information in Court filings must be limited as follows:

* Social security numbers, taxpayer-identification numbers, and financial account numbers
must include only the last four digits (e.g., xxx-xx-1234)

* Birth dates must include the year of birth only (e.g., xx/xx/2000)
« Names of persons under the age of 18 must be indicated by initials only (e.g., A.B.)

You are responsible for protecting the privacy of this information in your filings. If your
documents, including attachments, contain any information that does not comply with this rule,
please black out that information before sending your documents to the Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

“FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA...

NATASHA COLLINS,
Plaintiff,

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-CV-4104
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION :
(SBA) RESTAURANT :
REVITALIZATION FUND,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

MCHUGH, J. JANUARY 6, 2023

Pro se Plaintiff Natasha Collins filed a Complaint! alleging that her business, Homestyle
Bakery, was denied a Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“RRF”) grant on account of Collins’s race
and gender. The RRF is a program administrated by the Small Business Association (“SBA”)
that provided emergency assistance to eligible businesses affected by COVID-19. Collins seeks
to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Collins leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss her Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 USC.

§ 1915(e\2\(B)(ii). She will be granted leave to file an amended complaint as set forth more

fully below.

1 On October 12, 2022, the Clerk of Court docketed a letter sent by Collins to the Court.
(See ECE No. 1.) The letter attaches various documents. (See id.) Although the letter and
attachments are deficient as a formal complaint in several respects, the Clerk of Court treated the
letter as a complaint and opened this civil action. The Court will refer to the entire submission as
Collins’s “Complaint” and adopt the pagination supplied by the CM/ECEF docketing system.
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP © Document 7 | Filed 02/08/23. Page 11 of 19
Case 2:22-cv-04104-GAM Document5. Filed 01/06/23 Page 2 of 9

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Ms. Collins’s allegations are brief. She states that in May of 2021, RRF “wrongfully”
denied a grant application she submitted on behalf of her business, Homestyle Bakery, in the
amount of $550,430.04. (Compl. at 1-2.) She further alleges that her grant application met all of
the eligibility requirements but that RRF discriminated against her because she is a “Black
woman who own[s] a restaurant.” (Jd.) She appears to list reasons she believes that her business
is eligible for the RRF grant and requests that the Court “process my claim for monetary
compensation in the amount of $550.430.04.” (Id. at 3.) In support of her allegations, Ms.
Collins attaches various documents printed from the SBA website that appear to be excerpts
from her grant application and from the “RRF Program Guide.” (Id. at 5-24.)

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court grants Collins leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that she is
incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28U S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B\ii) requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim.

Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same

standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule ivil Pr re 12 , see
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to

determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 ULS, 662, 678 (2009)
(quotations omitted); Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F Ath 275, 286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021). “‘At this early stage
of the litigation,’ ‘[the Court will] accept the facts alleged in [the pro se] complaint as true,’
‘draw[] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor,’ and ‘ask only whether [that]

complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to state a plausible [] claim.’”
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP . Document:7 Filed 02/08/ |

Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d

168.774, 182 (7th Cir. 2015)). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Igbal, 556 US. at 678.
As Collins is proceeding pro se, the Court construes her allegations liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8
E.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021).

Moreover, a complaint may be dismissed for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019). To conform to Rule 8,
a pleading must contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

See Fed. R, Civ. P. 8(a\(2). The Third Circuit has explained that in determining whether a

pleading meets Rule 8’s “plain” statement requirement, the Court should “ask whether, liberally

construed, a pleading ‘identifies discrete defendants and the actions taken by these defendants’ in
regard to the plaintiff's claims.” Garrett, 238 F.3d at 93 (citation omitted). “[A] pleading that is
so ‘vague or ambiguous’ that a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to respond to it will not

satisfy Rule 8.” Id.; see also Fabian v. St. Mary’s Med. Ctr., No. 16-4741, 2017 WL 3494219, at

*3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2017) (“Federal Rule of ¢ ‘ivil Procedure 8 requires that pleadings provide

enough information to put a defendant on sufficient notice to prepare their defense and also
ensure that the Court is sufficiently informed to determine the issue.”) (quotations omitted).
Ill. DISCUSSION

Ms. Collins’s Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and to state a plausible claim. The
Court is unable to discern the precise nature of her claims. She alleges that RRF violated her

constitutional rights but cites to no applicable constitutional provision.” She also alleges that

2 As part of the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”) of 2021, Congress allocated nearly
$29 billion for RRF grants, see 15 ULS.C, § 9009c(b\(2\(A). The RRF grants were intended to
assist eligible restaurants, bars, and other qualifying businesses to cover “expenses incurred as a
direct result of, or during, the COVID-19 pandemic.” Jd. § 9009c(c)(5). “[T]he amount of a

3
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP Document7 Filed 02/08/23 Page 13 of 19
Case 2:22-cv-04104-GAM Document5 Filed 01/06/23 Page 4 of 9

RRF was negligent by not granting her application and that it discriminated against her based on

her race and gender. The Court is also unable to determine who Collins intends to name as
Defendants. Her letter alleges that RRF violated her rights, but the civil action sheet she attached
to the letter lists in the “Defendants” Box, “Small Business Administration (SBA) Restaurant
Revitalization Fund.” (Compl. at 23.) Collins also fails to provide sufficient facts to support her
claims. She alleges that a grant application was wrongfully denied but provides no factual
details about her business, or about the circumstances giving rise to her application for and denial
of a grant though the RRF program. To the extent that Collins attempts to substantiate her vague
and factually underdeveloped claims by relying on printouts from Government websites attached
to her letter, this is not sufficient to overcome the Rule 8 requirements. See Berkery v. Credit
Collection Servs., No. 21-3809, 2021 WL 4060454, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2021) (“While a
court may consider exhibits attached to a complaint, merely attaching exhibits is insufficient to
meet the requirement that a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”); RD Legal Funding, LLC v. Barry A. Cohen,

P.A., No. 13-77, 2013 WL 1338309, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 1, 2013) (“Plaintiff cannot meet its

pleading requirements under Rule 8(a) by attaching numerous exhibits to its Complaint.”).
Liberally construing the Complaint, as the Court must, the equal protection component of
the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause appears to be the most applicable constitutional

provision here based on Collins’s allegation that she was denied an RRF grant due to her race

grant made to an eligible entity” is based on the entity’s “pandemic-related revenue loss.” Jd. §
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP.. Document 7 Filed 02/08/23. Page 14 of 19
Case 2:22-cv-04104-GAM Document 5. Filed 01/06/23 Page 5 of 9

and gender.? Assuming without deciding that a Bivens remedy is available here,* any Bivens

claims Collins intends to assert must nevertheless be dismissed because, although unclear, she
appears to only seek relief against entities that are immune from Bivens liability. Bivens claims

may not be brought against the United States or federal agencies, such as the SBA. See F.D.LC.

v. Meyer, 510 ULS, 471, 475 (1994) (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal

Government and its agencies from suit.”); Lewal v. Ali, 289 F. App’x 515, 516 (3d Cir. 2008)

(per curiam) (“Bivens claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity, absent

an explicit waiver.”); Ynfante v. United States, No. 13-767, 2015 WL 631055, at *5 (M.D. Pa.

Feb. 12, 2015) (“[A] Bivens claim can only be asserted against individual officials.”).
Moreover, even if Collins had named a proper defendant for an equal protection claim

under Bivens, she has nevertheless failed to state a plausible claim. Plaintiffs pursuing an equal

protection claim must allege that they were purposefully discriminated against, in that “they

3 The ARPA contained a provision requiring an initial 21-day period in which the
Administrator would “prioritize awarding grants” to businesses “owned and controlled by
women,” by “veterans,” and by those “social and economically disadvantaged.” ISUS.C.§

4 “Bivens” is a shorthand reference to Bivens v. Sic Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US. 388, 392 (1971), which provides a damages remedy for
constitutional violations committed by federal actors in very limited circumstances. Egbert v.
Boule, 142. S. Ct. 1793, 1799-1800 (2022); Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017).
Bivens does not, however, provide a remedy for every constitutional violation committed by any
federal actor. Since Bivens was decided in 1971, the Supreme Court has expressly recognized an
implied cause of action in only three types of cases, see Abbasi, 137S. Ct_at 1854-55, and “has
repeatedly refused to recognize Bivens actions in any new contexts.” Vanderklok v. United
States, 868 F.3d 189, 199 (3d Cir. 2017); Egbert, 142 S. Ct. at 1809. Although the United States
Supreme Court has allowed a Bivens action to redress a violation of the equal protection
component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see Davis v. Passman, 442 WS.
228 (1979), the case involved discrimination in employment and not discrimination committed
by a federal agency in administering a federal grant program, as is alleged here.

5
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP. Document 7 — Filed 02/08/23. Page 15 of 19
Case 2:22-cv-04104-GAM Document5 Filed 01/06/23 Page 6 of 9

received different treatment from that received by other individuals similarly situated.”° Shuman

ex rel. Shertzer v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 151 (3d Cir. 2005) (emphasis in
original); Wilson v. Schillinger, 161 F.2d 921, 929 (3d Cir. 1985) (a litigant must show
“intentional or purposeful discrimination” to establish an equal protection violation). “Persons
are ‘similarly situated’ for purposes of an equal protection claim when ‘they are alike in all
relevant aspects.’” Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183, 203 (3d Cir. 2008) (emphasis
omitted). Collins has not alleged similarly situated business owners were treated differently with
respect to their RRF grants, and that such differential treatment was the result of intentional
discrimination. This is fatal to her equal protection claims. Perano v. Twp. Of Tilden, 423 E.
App’x 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of equal protection claim where the plaintiff
“simply alleged that he was treated differently from ‘other similarly situated residential and
commercial developers’” but did not provide “specific factual allegations as to the allegedly
similarly situated parties”). Accordingly, Collins fails to state a plausible equal protection claim.
To the extent Collins intended to raise a race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981,° the claim fails for similar reasons. ‘“To establish a claim under § 1981, the plaintiff

> Equal protection claims asserted under the Fifth Amendment are examined under the
same principles that apply to such claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. Abdul-Akbar v.
McKelyie, 239 F.3d 307, 316 (3d Cir.2001).

6 Section 1981 provides that:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in
every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give
evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the
security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject
to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind,
and to no other.

42 U.S.C § 1981.
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP Document 7. Filed 02/08/23. Page 16 of 19
Case 2:22-cv-04104-GAM Document5 Filed 01/06/23 Page 7 of 9

must allege (1) [she is a member of a racial minority; (2) the defendant intended to discriminate

against the plaintiff on the basis of race; and (3) the discrimination concerned one or more of the
activities enumerated in the statute (i.e., make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give
evidence, etc.).’” White v. Wireman, No. 16-675, 2018 WL 1278588, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 8,
2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL1251786 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2018)
(quoting Coggins v. Cty. of Nassau, 988 F, Supp, 2d 231, 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd in part,
appeal dismissed in part sub nom. Coggins v. Buonora, 176. F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2015). Collins’s
§ 1981 discrimination claims fail because she has not alleged any basis to conclude that she was
denied a grant or was otherwise discriminated against on the basis of her race. “To state a claim
for intentional discrimination, a plaintiff must do more than allege a series of unfortunate events
and baldly allege that the defendants discriminated against him.” Abdullah v. Small Bus.
Banking Dep’t of Bank of America, No. 13-0305, 2013 WL 1389755, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 5,
2013) (dismissing § 1981 claim where amended complaint did not allege, inter alia, how
defendant would have been aware of plaintiff’s race when it chose not to extend loan).
Accordingly, Collins fails to allege a plausible race discrimination claim under Section 1981.

It is possible Collins also intends to raise Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”) claims
based on allegations that the SBA was negligent in failing to grant her RRF application. The
FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for claims sounding in state tort law for
money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (waiving sovereign immunity to make the United States
liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like
circumstances”); Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692,700 (2004) (“The FTCA was designed
primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort, with certain

specific exceptions.” (internal quotations omitted)). However, a plaintiff must exhaust
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP Document 7. Filed 02/08/23. Page 17 of 19
Case 2:22-cv-04104-GAM Document 5 Filed 01/06/23 Page 8 of 9

__ administrative remedies as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit under the FTCA. See 2831 S.C_§
2675(a). In other words, “[n]o claim can be brought under the FTCA unless the plaintiff first
presents the claim to the appropriate federal agency and the agency renders a final decision on
the claim.” Shelton v. Bledsoe, 715 F.3d 554, 569 (3d Cir. 2015) (stating that exhaustion is
“jurisdictional and cannot be waived”); see also Burrell v. Loungo, 150 F. App’x 149, 154 (3d
Cir. 2018). A plaintiff “must... plead administrative exhaustion in an FTCA case.” Colbert v.
U.S. Postal Serv., 831 FE. Supp, 2d 240, 243 (D.D.C. 2011). Because Collins has not pled any
facts about administrative exhaustion to the SBA, any FTCA claim she may have intended must
be dismissed.

Because the claims are unclear and the facts are underdeveloped, the Complaint fails to
provide fair notice of the grounds upon which Collins’s claims against Defendants rest, as
required by Rule 8. See Afzal v. N.J. Bd. of Med. Examiners, No. 22-1609, 2022 WL 4533826, at
*3 (3d Cir. Sept. 28, 2022) (affirming dismissal of complaint pursuant to Rule 8 because plaintiff
failed to plead adequate factual content to support a reasonable inference that defendants were
liable and failed to present cognizable legal claims to which defendants could respond on the
merits). While it may be possible for Collins to proceed on claims against Defendants for
violations of her rights, Collins’s Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a
plausible claim against any Defendant.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Ms. Collins leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss her Complaint without prejudice pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(e)(2)(BVii) for failure to state a claim. Considering her pro

se status, Collins will be permitted the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the
Case 2:22-cv-04104-JP.. Document 7 Filed 02/08/23 Page 18 of 19
Case 2:22-cv-04104-GAM. Document5 Filed 01/06/23 Page 9 of 9

defects the Court has noted as to her claims. An appropriate order follows, which contains
additional instructions as to amendment.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh

GERALD A. MCHUGH, J.


File and source

File

7-amended-complaint.pdf

Size

3,621,047 bytes

SHA-256

f67db6b49049d264cd5364c20462c5d3657baa9d2328929c013a0394f88d3803

Our copy

7-amended-complaint.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)