# O'Bryant

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · February 11, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11261977

## Case

- **Full name:** Martino O’Bryant v. Extra Space Storage
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** February 11, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11261977

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing factual frivolity as “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims to which federal district judges are all too familiar”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MARTINO O’BRYANT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:26-cv-00084-HEA
)
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, )
)
Defendant. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ODER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Martino O’Bryant’s Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. 2. Having
reviewed the Application and financial information, the Court will grant the
Application and waive the filing fee. For the following reasons, on initial review,
the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and dismisses any state law claims for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff
must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility
of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief” is “a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. The Court must “accept as true the facts
alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958,
964 (8th Cir. 2016); see also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371,

372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (court not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation”).
When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court

must give it the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). A “liberal construction” means that, “if the essence of an allegation is
discernible . . . then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that
permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.”

Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364
F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this civil complaint against Defendant Extra Space Storage

alleging it violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process when
it did not notify him that its facility would be closed for four to five days.
Plaintiff states that he rents a storage unit from Defendant and he keeps his

tennis training equipment in the unit. In February or March, 2025, Defendant’s
facility was broken into and subsequently closed for four or five days. During this
time, Plaintiff could not access his storage unit and could not use his training
equipment. As a result, he alleges he lost prospective tournament earnings of up to

$3.6 million. Doc. 1-4 at 1. He states,
During this time frame, I was unable to complete the rigorous training
regimen I’d devised to prepare me to compete in amateur tennis
tournaments as a competitive tennis player. I would be able to compete
for developmental income as a player. After making it to the semis of
a tournament, I would then have sufficient information regarding the
tennis game I’d have to develop to ascend to the next level of prize
money play.

Doc. 1-1 at 1-2 (emphasis in original).
For relief, Plaintiff seeks an Order requiring Defendant to arbitrate this matter
within 24 to 48 hours, free access to his storage unit pending arbitration, copies of
all documents and camera footage Defendant would produce in an arbitration, an
investigation into the crime, and “financial sanctions.” Id. at 4. As to the financial
sanctions, Plaintiff states the amount in controversy is $400,000, although he
includes no explanation of this calculation. Id.

Discussion
Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his procedural due process rights under
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He appears to bring these claims under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. To allege a violation of constitutional due process rights, however,
Plaintiff must show state action on the part of Defendant. See Warren v. Government
Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 611 F.2d 1229, 1232 (8th Cir. 1980). “The Due Process Clause
. . . applies to federal government not private action.” Id.; see also Zutz v. Nelson,

601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010). Defendant is a private storage company, not a
public actor. Because Defendant did not act under color of state law, Plaintiff cannot
state a plausible claim that Defendant violated his procedural due process rights.

The Court will dismiss these claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff claims Defendant breached its storage contract
with him. But, an action for breach of contract arises under Missouri state law, not

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Assuming
Plaintiff might allege diversity jurisdiction over this state law claim, this claim
would also fail.
Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties are citizens of different states
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff

has not alleged the citizenship of either party. Assuming the parties were citizens of
different states, Plaintiff has not plausibly pled damages of more than $75,000. He
seems to base his monetary damages on the amount of tournament money he would

have won had he been able to train during the four or five days he lacked access to
his equipment. His claim to damages of $400,000 is likely factually frivolous. See
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (describing factual frivolity as “claims
describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims to which federal district judges

are all too familiar”) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989)). Even
taken at face value, these damages are entirely speculative. Thus, Plaintiff has not
met his burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction as he has not alleged the parties’

citizenship and has not plausibly alleged $400,000 in damages based on unrealized
tournament winnings. Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009).
To the extent Plaintiff brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
Defendant violated his constitutional due process rights, these claims are dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To the extent Plaintiff
alleges Missouri state law contract claims, he has not met either of the requirements
for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As a result, this Court lacks

jurisdiction over these state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in the
District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs is GRANTED. (Doc. 2)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff is pleading breach
of contract claims, these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for preliminary
injunction and for an emergency hearing are DENIED as moot. (Docs. 3 and 4).
Dated this 11 day of February, 2026.
Kash doed [lbp
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY □
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-6-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11261977. Public record. Not legal advice.