Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. State

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

May 1, 2015

ELAINA THOMAS, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF #1) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF #2) AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF #3) AS MOOT

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this action, Plaintiff Elaina Thomas, proceeding pro se, alleges that the Michigan Department of Human Services “is illegally removing innocent children prior to going to court, using pre-stamp[ed] court order[s].” (See the “Complaint, ” ECF #1 at 1.) Plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits in this District, all of which have been dismissed as frivolous and/or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Thomas v. Havenwyck Hosp., No. 12-14693, 2012 WL 5438951 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2012); Thomas v. Kingswood Hosp., No. 12-14695, 2012 WL 5447971 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2012); Thomas v. Bibbs, No. 12-14545, Dkt. #3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2012); Thomas v. Reeder, No. 12-14744, Dkt. #3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 6, 2012); Thomas v. Plymouth Educ. Ctr., No. 12-14689, Dkt. #3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2012). See also Thomas v. Dept. of Human Svcs., No. 14-50840, Dkt. #2 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2014) (noting that all of Plaintiff’s prior complaints in this Court have been dismissed).

Like her prior complaints, this action appears to be frivolous. Nonetheless, the Court declines to address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim because Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any pleadings in this Court without first obtaining leave. See Thomas v. Bailey, No. 12-14558, Dkt. #9 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2012) (Friedman, J.) (“Elaina Thomas is enjoined from filing any further correspondence or pleadings … without first obtaining permission from this Court and providing proof of permission to the Clerk of the Court.”). Plaintiff did not obtain the Court’s permission to file her Complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF #2) Application for Appointment of Counsel (ECF #3) are DENIED AS MOOT.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.