United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JAMES D. METZ, JR., Plaintiff,
AT&T PONTIAC MICH., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND ENJOINING
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge
April 13, 2018, James D. Metz, Jr. filed a pro se complaint
against AT&T Pontiac Mich., The (Black) Wheel John, John
Doe, Mark K. Lucille, Dr. Pete P., and Pontiac General
Hospital. The handwritten complaint claims violations of the
Fifth Amendment, Third Amendment, First Amendment, and
treaties. ECF 1, PgID 8. The particular treaties to which
Plaintiff avers are the "Treaty of Versailles, "
the France-England Treaty of 1775, the Italy and France
Treaty, and German Treaty. Id. at 4. Plaintiff's
statement of the claim is largely unintelligible but includes
claims such as: "AT&T made us all different colors,
" "[t]here is an invisible knife and invisible gun
in the head. Back of the head brain hit." and
"Robbed in the air sometimes by the Theory of Relativity
(Einstein) scientist by UT and hospital (PGH) Thief."
Id. at 5. Metz asks the Court to "disconnect
Thief Line, invisible gun line, invisible Knife Line and
carry a anti-Hertz Line Relay in my pocket in my clothes at
the expense of AT&T." Id.
application to proceed in forma pauperis details that Metz
has no gross pay or take-home wages. ECF 5, PgID 15. His
other sources of income are not intelligible.
Plaintiff did not provide an affidavit, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court will grant Metz's
request to proceed in forma pauperis.
reviewing the complaint, however, the Court finds that the
complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). The Court, therefore, will sua sponte dismiss
the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
(requiring the court to "dismiss [an in forma pauperis]
case at any time if the court" finds certain features
pro se-litigant filings are entitled to liberal
constructions, "a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). Dismissal
of a case is appropriate when the "claim is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory[.]" Wilson v.
Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600 (6th Cir.1998). A pro se
complaint is frivolous when "it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact, " which includes
"fanciful factual allegation[s]." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Even if Metz's
complaint can be said to contain a legal theory, any existent
theory is indisputably meritless. Moreover, Metz's claims
lack an arguable basis in law and contain factual contentions
that are "clearly baseless, " "fantastic,
" and "delusional." Id. at 327-28.
The Court, therefore, will dismiss Metz's complaint.
the present lawsuit is not Metz's first in the Eastern
District of Michigan. Metz has filed ten previous
lawsuits. As with the present lawsuit, Metz's
previous cases share a combination of features: (1) Metz
proceeded (or attempted to proceed) in forma pauperis; (2)
the complaints are largely unintelligible, (3) the complaints
fail to state jurisdictional bases or claims for relief; and
(4) courts summarily dismiss the complaints.
district courts have "authority to enjoin harassing
litigation under [their] inherent authority and the All Writs
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)." Wrenn v. Vanderbilt
Univ. Hosp., 50 F.3d 11 (6th Cir. 1995) (Table). When
exercising their inherent authority, federal courts may
"'impose carefully tailored restrictions' upon
'abusive litigants.'" Scott v.
Bradford, No. 13-12781, 2014 WL 6675354, at *3 (E.D.
Mich. Nov. 25, 2014) (quoting Cotner v. Hopkins, 795
F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986)). The courts may not
completely foreclose a plaintiff from initiating an action in
a federal court, but the district courts may "require
one who has abused the legal process to make a showing that a
tendered lawsuit is not frivolous or vexatious before
permitting it to be filed." Ortman v. Thomas,
99 F.3d 807, 811 (6th Cir. 1996).
filing pattern evinces a history of frivolous, in forma
pauperis complaints. To safeguard judicial resources, the
Court will enjoin Metz from filing in the future except under
it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis  is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that James D. Metz or James D.
Metz, Jr. is ENJOINED and
RESTRAINED from filing any new complaints in
this district without first petitioning for and obtaining
leave from the presiding judge of this Court.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future filings by James
D. Metz shall be captioned "Application Pursuant to
Court Order Seeking Leave to File" and shall be
accompanied by a copy of this order. The Clerk's office
is directed to reject any filing by Metz that does not comply
with these instructions. The district court will review
Metz's filings and shall certify whether the filing has
been made in good faith. If the district court determines