United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
VINCENT M. SHEFFEY, Plaintiff,
O'REILLY RANCILIO, P.C., CITY OF DETROIT, STATE OF MICHIGAN and ERIC SABREE, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES, SUMMARILY DISMISSING AND CLOSING ACTION, AND
FINDING ALLEGATIONS FRIVOLOUS
Page Hood Chief Judge
the Court is Vincent M. Sheffey's Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis. A review of the
application supports his claim of pauper status. The Court
grants in forma pauperis status to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee for this action. However, for
the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the action
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a
district court may dismiss a complaint before service on a
defendant if it is satisfied that the action is frivolous,
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
or defendants who is/are immune from such relief. A complaint
may be dismissed as frivolous “where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, the Sixth Circuit clarified the
procedures a district court must follow when faced with a
civil action filed by a non-prisoner proceeding in
Unlike prisoner cases, complaints by non-prisoners are not
subject to the screening process required by § 1915A.
However, the district court must still screen the complaint
under § 1915(e)(2) ... Section 1915(e)(2) provides us
with the ability to screen these, as well as prisoner cases
that satisfy the requirements of this section. The screening
must occur even before process is served or the individual
has had an opportunity to amend the complaint. The complaint
must be dismissed if it falls within the requirements of
§ 1915(e)(2) when filed.
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.
1997)(overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007)); Smith v. Bernanke, 283 F.
App'x 356, 357 (6th Cir. Jun. 26, 2008). Federal courts
hold the pro se complaint to a “less stringent
standard” than those drafted by attorneys. Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). However, pro se
litigants are not excused from failing to follow basic
procedural requirements. Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d
108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Brock v. Hendershott, 840
F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1988).
filed a 22-page document entitled, “Complaint and
Status” on February 1, 2017. (Doc. No. 1) Plaintiff
asserts he has never been part of “this corporate state
or their judicial system.” Id. Plaintiff seeks
compensation in the amount of $150, 000.00. Id.
Plaintiff attached documents referring to the “Lufkin
County” case and a document entitled, “Fraud!
Fraud! Fraud!” Id. The named-Defendants in the
case caption are O'Reilly Rancilio P.C., City of Detroit,
State of Michigan and Wayne County Treasurer-Eric Sabree.
There are no factual allegations against the named-Defendants
in the substance of the “Complaint and Status.”
reviewing the “Complaint and Status” and the
other documents filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds Plaintiff
failed to follow the rules of pleading set forth in Rule 8(a)
of the Rules of Civil Procedure which requires “a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Even liberally construing
the documents submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds that
Plaintiff failed to allege any factual grounds showing that
Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from the
named-Defendants. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court finds
Plaintiff's submissions frivolous.
reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Vincent
M. Sheffey's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 4) is
FURTHER ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice
and this action is designated as CLOSED on the docket.
FURTHER ORDERED that this action is frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Any Appeal of this Order would be
frivolous and would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962), McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11.
 Plaintiff refers to a previously-filed
case before former District Judge Gerald E. Rosen (retired
from the Bench effective January 31, 2017). The previous
matter was a student loan recovery action filed by the United
States against the plaintiff in the instant case, Vincent
Sheffey. A Default Judgment was entered against Sheffey on