United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JEROME S. ADAMS, Plaintiff,
DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES, DENYING REQUEST FOR SERVICE, SUMMARILY
DISMISSING AND CLOSING ACTION, AND FINDING ALLEGATIONS
PAGE HOOD CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
the Court is Plaintiff Jerome S. Adam's Application to
Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. A review of the
application supports his claim of pauper status. The Court
grants Plaintiff 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).
Complaint alleges diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1, Pg ID 3) He claims $500,
000, 000, 000 as the amount in controversy. Id. at
Pg ID 5. Plaintiff asserts that from May to November 2016,
Defendant “has taken my law suit money. I have been
denied by 36 district court for numburs (sic) of
reasons.” Id. Plaintiff further asserts that
he is entitled to money “because it was awarded to me
by the court. The movie that was done about my life, I never
got paid for.” Id. The relief Plaintiff
requests is to have “all my money that President Donald
Trump has taken from me in my law suits.” Id.
at Pg ID 6.
reviewing the Complaint 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 Complaint filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds
that Plaintiff failed to allege any factual grounds showing
that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from the Defendant.
Other than alleging Defendant took his money from his law
suits, there are no factual allegations describing what the
underlying law suits were about, the amount awarded to
Plaintiff in those law suits, and how Defendant took the
money from those law suits. Plaintiff also failed to allege
any legal authority as to why Plaintiff may recover from
Defendant any money awarded to Plaintiff from the law suits,
if any. The Court finds Plaintiff fails to state a claim
against Defendant upon which relief may be granted under
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6). The Court further finds the
allegations and statements in Plaintiff's Complaint are
reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Jerome
S. Adams' Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Service by the United
States Marshal (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED as MOOT.
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. ...