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.

Amponsah v. Randall

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

November 13, 2017

MABEL AMPONSAH, Plaintiff,
v.
RANDALL, Defendant.

          ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF #2), (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL (ECF #3)

          MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff Mabel Amponsah filed this civil action. (See Complaint, ECF #1.) The Complaint asserts claims against “Officer Randall.” (See id.) Amponsah also filed an application to proceed in in forma pauperis (the “Application”) (see ECF #2), and she requested that the Court direct the United States Marshal to serve the Summons and Complaint. (See ECF #3.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Amponsah's Application, DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice, and DENIES Amponsah's request for service by the U.S. Marshal.

         I[1]

         Amponsah claims that she filed a police report at some point with Officer Randall at the Clinton Township Police Department. (See Compl., ECF #1 at Pg. ID 7.) Amponsah said in the report that her employment had recently been terminated and that she still possessed some of her former employer's product. (See id.) Officer Randall told her that she could “keep the product for [the] lawsuit [she apparently intended to file against the former employer].” (Id.)

         A week later, two different police officers from the Clinton Township Police Department stopped Amponsah on the basis that she had stolen her former employer's product. (See id.) The two police officers confiscated the allegedly-stolen product. (See id.) Following the incident, Amponsah discovered that the police report she had earlier made to Officer Randall was not on file. (See id.) The Clinton Township Police Department later informed Amponsah that “they would drop the charges against [her] for having the product back.” (Id.)

         Amponsah has now filed this action against Officer Randall. She asserts claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. She also appears to assert state-law claims for “Outrageous Discrimination; Gross Negligence; Outrageous Misconduct; Breached [sic] of Contract; and Mental Anguish and Trauma.” (Id. at Pg. ID 8.) She seeks $3, 000 in compensatory damages. (Id.) As part of her requested relief, Amponsah also asks “[t]hat all Commercial Buildings including Businesses [sic] centers, Stores, Gas Stations, Restaurant [sic], all who do business in the Community, must all have bathroom privileges for courtesy and prudent service to the members of the community in which they serve . . . .” (Id.) Amponsah further requests that “the Clinton Township Police should seek the Government approval again for more Tee Pee privileges in each community in the Nation.” (Id.)

         II

         Applications to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That statute provides that a federal court “may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action, or proceeding . . . by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees . . . .” Id.

         In the Application, Amponsah states that she is unemployed, has no money in any bank accounts, and has no sources of income. (See Application, ECF #2 at Pg. ID 13-14.) The Court has reviewed the Application and is satisfied that the prepayment of the filing fee would cause an undue financial hardship on Amponsah. The Court therefore grants the Application and permits Amponsah to file her Complaint without prepaying the filing fee.

         III

         A

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte if the Court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

         Although a pro-se litigant's complaint (like the one Amponsah has filed here) is to be construed liberally, see Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F.Supp. 391, 392 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)), it must nonetheless be dismissed if it fails to “plead facts sufficient to show a legal wrong has been committed from which plaintiff may be granted relief.” Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F.Supp.2d 796, 799 (E.D. Mich. 2001); see also Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. ...


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.