United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JOSEPH F. OLIVARES, Plaintiff,
MICHIGAN COMPENSATION AGENCY, MARK LONG, MICHIGAN BOARD OF MAGISTRATES, MAGISTRATE TJAPKES, MICHIGAN COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION, JAMES KENT and his successors, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Joseph F. Olivares proceeding pro se, has filed a
complaint naming the Michigan Worker Compensation Agency and
others 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
reinstatement of his benefits.
and despite plaintiff's statements to the contrary, it
appears he is seeking 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, ...