United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING CLERK TO RETURN THE
FILING FEE TO PLAINTIFF
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jermaine Goode, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
naming Cheryl Muhammad, a Detroit Police Officer, Ron
Haywood, a Wayne County Prosecutor, and Kevin J. Cox, a Wayne
County Circuit Court Judge, as defendants. For the reasons
that follow, the complaint will be dismissed. The Clerk will
be directed to return the filing fee to plaintiff.
generally may not sua sponte dismiss a case where
the filing fee has been paid unless the court gives the party
notice and the opportunity to amend the complaint.
Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1111-12 (6th
Cir. 1983). However, “a district court may, at any
time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a
complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial,
frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to
discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, et al. 183 F.3d
477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). See Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (citing numerous
Supreme Court cases for the proposition that patently
frivolous claims divest the district court of jurisdiction);
In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th
Cir.1988) (recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is
divested by obviously frivolous and unsubstantial claims).
reviewing pro se papers, the court must employ
standards less stringent than if the complaint had been
drafted by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972). However, “pro se plaintiffs are not
automatically entitled to take every case to trial.”
Price v. Caruso, 451 F.Supp.2d 889, 893 (E.D. Mich.
2006) (quoting Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413,
416 (6th Cir.1996)).
Court has read the complaint. From what can be gleaned,
plaintiff was charged with a criminal drug offense in Wayne
County following the execution of a search warrant. Muhammad
prepared the search warrant affidavit. Haywood is the
prosecutor in the case. The charges were initially dropped
upon the motion of plaintiff's attorney to dismiss for
failure to prosecute. However, after the dismissal, plaintiff
was rearrested for the same drug offense. Plaintiff, through
a new attorney, moved for a hearing to challenge the search
warrant. Cox, the judge in the case, denied the motion.
Plaintiff eventually plead guilty under a plea agreement and
is awaiting sentencing.
says that the affidavit in support of the search warrant is
invalid, that officer Muhammad violated his constitutional
rights in obtaining it, that prosecutor Haywood has failed to
turn over exculpatory materials or other requested
information in violation of plaintiff's constitutional
rights, and Judge Cox violated his constitutional rights in
denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing on the search
asks for the Court to issue an injunction against the
criminal proceedings, declare the search warrant invalid, and
declare that defendants have violated his constitutional
rights and “such other relief” that may be
it appears that plaintiff is attempting to invoke the
Court's federal question jurisdiction, the complaint is
subject to dismissal for a number of reasons.
plaintiff is asking the Court to enjoin a state court
criminal proceeding. Under Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 45 (1971), the Court cannot grant plaintiff this
relief. In Younger, the Supreme Court held that
federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal
proceedings except in “very unusual
circumstances” where an injunction is necessary to
prevent “both great and immediate” irreparable
injury. The Supreme Court held that the cost, anxiety, and
inconvenience of a defendant having to defend against a
single criminal prosecution cannot be considered by
themselves to constitute irreparable injury. Id. at
46. Further, because “[n]o citizen or member of the
community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his
alleged criminal acts[, ] such a prosecution even though
alleged to be unauthorized and hence unlawful is not alone
ground for relief in equity.” Id. (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
Courts should employ three factors to determine whether the