Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Olivares v. Michigan Compensation Agency

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 7, 2017

JOSEPH F. OLIVARES, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHIGAN COMPENSATION AGENCY, MICHIGAN WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION, MICHIGAN BOARD OF MAGISTRATES, MAGISTRATE TJAPKES, and THE 30th CIRCUIT COURT THE HONORABLE COLLETTE, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          AVERN COHN U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         I.

         Plaintiff Joseph F. Olivares[1] proceeding pro se, has filed a “complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus” naming the “Michigan Compensation Agency, Michigan Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission, in their individual capacity, Th Michigan Board of Magistrates, Magistrate Tjapkes, The 30th Circuit Court the Honorable Collette” as defendants. As best as can be gleaned, plaintiff is suing to have orders issued by defendants “be removed as void of 2005.” He cites several provisions of Michigan law under the Michigan Workers' Disability Compensation Act, the Michigan Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

         II.

         Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Based upon the information in plaintiff's “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ” the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, GRANTS plaintiff in forma pauperis status.

         III.

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) a Court may dismiss a complaint at any time if it determines that the case is frivolous or malicious, that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint "is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Factual frivolousness includes allegations that are “clearly baseless, ” “fantastic”, or “delusional.” Id. at 327-28.

         Moreover, a federal court is always “under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, ” FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990), and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982). Indeed, a court is required to dismiss an action at any time if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); See Wagenknecht v. United States, 533 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.2008) (“a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”). A district court may also dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the allegations therein “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) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372 (1974).

         Finally, the Court must read pro se complaints indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

         IV.

         The Court has read the complaint. It is virtually unintelligible. The complaint makes mention that his employer was ordered to pay “benefits” in 2000 and again in 2005 stemming from a medical issue plaintiff had in 1998. He alleges that defendants have violated his rights to due process. He seeks mandamus relief in the form of this Court ordering defendants to “remove all orders” which he says violate the law. He cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a basis for jurisdiction.

         A.

         First, to the extent plaintiff seeks to relitigate events that occurred relating to a workers' compensation claim in state court, the complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under this doctrine, lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 & n.16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); see also Anderson v. Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487, 492 (6th Cir. 2001). This is true even in the face of allegations that “the state court's action was unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S.Ct. at 1317; see also Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 233-34 (6th ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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