United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Angel Bartlett, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint
against Kalamazoo Community Mental Health, Portage Behavioral
Health, Allegan County, and numerous individuals.
Bartlett's complaint, like others she has previously
filed before this Court, is rambling, quite difficult to
follow, and makes little sense. Bartlett begins her complaint
by citing various federal and Michigan criminal statutes and
Michigan Rules of Evidence. She then launches into a
wandering and incoherent narrative of her experiences in the
mental health system and personal issues. Examples include:
• Dr. Mauli Verma lied to the courts and the State of MI
Janice Lovett and Michael Baker was using CMH as a tool to
get my kids away. They then caused me severe mental illness
due to the fact Allegan County wanted my kids.
• I have not been in a steady relationship because they
do such bad orders on the person I am with. I can't date
without them making really bad actions on the partner. They
drive us all crazy. I can't do anything including eat
normal they put severe drives on me such as EATING Disorders
and make me eat more than usual.
• Angel Schneider-Hopkins also has done severe orders on
me and has tried to cover her actions by doing orders of me
getting attacked and I then write her.
• The enclosed Planned Parenthood medical record shows a
number of things that need to be noted. One is I have been
accused of being a prostitute for many years by the State and
the police. I do not have any diseases no HIV. It shows I am
• They keep trying to place me in the mental hospital
but they cannot. I was almost put in but I called and got an
override to get released right away. I was not doing anything
wrong and they will not stop.
(ECF No. 1 at PageID.3-6.)
February 23, 2018, the magistrate judge issued an order
granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss any action
brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also
Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir.
1999) (holding that "§ 1915(e)(2) applies only to
in forma pauperis proceedings"). The Court must read a
pro se plaintiff's complaint indulgently,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct.
594, 596 (1972), and accept her allegations as true, unless
they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733
(1992). The Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint
must be dismissed as required by § 1915(e)(2) because it
fails to state a claim.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint must
provide “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds'
of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct.
1955, 1964-65 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957)). The court must accept
all of the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466
(6th Cir. 2009). The court must determine whether the
complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although the
plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“‘probability requirement, ' . . . it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965). “[W]here the
well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'-that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct.
at 1950 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).
fails to state a discernable claim. First, many of the
statutes Plaintiff cites are criminal statutes that do not
provide a private right of action and may not be enforced by
private individuals. See Benton v. Kentucky-Jefferson
Cnty. Attorney's Office, No. 3:14CV-264-S, 2014 WL
3941571, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 12, 2014) (concluding that the
plaintiff could not enforce 18 U.S.C. § 1038-a criminal
statute pertaining to false information and hoaxes-as a
private citizen); Traveler v. CSX Transp., inc., No.
1:06CV56, 2007 WL 1830807, at *2 (N.D. Ind. June 22, 2007)
(holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 and 1623 are
criminal statutes which do not provide a private right of
action for damages). Second, although the Court has reviewed
Plaintiff's complaint in detail, the Court finds no
factual basis for a viable legal claim. Finally, the
complaint is replete with references to “people,
” “they, ” and “them, ” but
Plaintiff fails to identify any specific person who took an
action against her that allegedly violated her rights under
the Constitution or a federal statute that provides a private
right of action.
Court also notes that “[a] complaint may be dismissed
sua sponte 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.” Clark v. United
States, 74 F. App'x 561, 562 (6th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons stated
above, the Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
short, although Plaintiff is clearly upset about her
involvement and/or treatment in the state mental health
system, her complaint ...