United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS  AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's application
to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's
application and affidavit and GRANTS his request to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Docket 2.) For the reasons that
follow, however, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's
complaint as frivolous and failing to state a claim on which
relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
standards governing in forma pauperis motions are
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The district court may
authorize the commencement of a civil action without the
prepayment of fees or costs by a person who submits an
affidavit that he “is unable to pay such fees or give
security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Plaintiff claims that he is unemployed, has no savings,
alleges that he owns half of his mother's home, but that
ownership is being contested, has no real estate or other
assets of significant value, and is self-employed but that
all of his product inventory has been "thrown out"
and his entire business "has stopped." (Dkt. 2.)
Based on this affidavit, the Court grants Plaintiff's
application to proceed without prepayment of fees pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
when a plaintiff establishes indigence, the district court
must screen the complaint as mandated by Congress in §
1915(e)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see
also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th
Cir. 1997) (Section "1915(e)(2) is restricted neither to
actions brought by prisoners, nor to cases involving
government defendants."). Specifically, the district
court is obligated to dismiss a civil complaint if it is
“frivolous . . .; [or] fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
preliminary matter, the Court is not convinced that it has
subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint.
"[F]ederal courts have a continuing obligation to
inquire into the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction to
satisfy themselves that jurisdiction to entertain an action
exists." Campanella v. Commerce Exch. Bank, 137
F.3d 885, 891 (6th Cir. 1998). "This duty applies
irrespective of the parties' failure to raise a
jurisdictional challenge on their own, and if jurisdiction is
lacking, dismissal is mandatory." Id. (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)). This Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over claims "arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, "
28 U.S.C. § 1331, as well as "all civil actions
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75, 000 . . . and is between  citizens of different
States[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff's
complaint does not plead a plausible cause of action arising
under federal law. Nor does Plaintiff allege that the parties
are citizens of different states. Where, as here, Plaintiff
has failed to assert a plausible jurisdictional hook
permitting this Court to exercise its power over Defendants,
it must, and does, dismiss all claims against them.
while the Court is mindful that a pro se
litigant's complaint is held to “less stringent
standards” than a complaint drafted by counsel, it must
contain facts sufficient to show that a redressable legal
wrong has been committed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b). Dismissal is appropriate where "the claim is
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory[.]"
Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600 (6th Cir.
Plaintiff contends that the manager of his mother's
current living facility has been colluding with his
mother's conservator to ban him from visiting his mother
because "[t]hey are trying to obstruct justice by
denying me access to my Mom so we can't prepare this RICO
case against them." (Cmpl. Relief § A.) Among
multiple defendants, he also names a probate judge as a
defendant. (Dkt. 1.) He alleges violations of 18 U.S.C.
sections 1512, 1513 (racketeering); the Thirteenth Amendment
(involuntary servitude); 18 U.S.C. sections 241, 242
(conspiracy against rights); 18 U.S.C. sections 1510, 1512,
1513, and 1519 (tampering/retaliation against victim, witness
or informant & destruction of evidence); honest services
fraud; Fourteenth Amendment violation of Due Process;
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and Article
6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (supremacy
clause). Plaintiff attempts to construct claims from a list
of alleged constitutional and federal violations void of a
factual basis on which the Court could find an arguable basis
is appropriate when the allegations of a complaint "are
totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous,
devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion."
Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff's complaint fits squarely within
Apple's mandate. For that reason, the Court