United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. Maloney United States District Judge.
a diversity action brought by a federal prisoner proceeding
in forma pauperis, under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court
is required to dismiss any prisoner 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. The Court must read Plaintiff's
pro se complaint 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). Applying these
standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim.
is presently incarcerated at the federal correctional
institution in Forrest City, Arkansas. Plaintiff sues Horizon
alleges that Defendant Horizon Bank was negligent and/or
engaged in fraud when, in 2007, it failed to perform due
diligence before accepting a fraudulent power of attorney
from an unauthorized person to issue mortgages and personal
lines of credit against six properties owned by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that the negligence or fraud of Defendant
resulted in a loss of $9, 139, 520.00. He seeks compensatory
damages in that amount.
Failure to state a claim
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). 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. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679. 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[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.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill
v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding
that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies
to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
a diversity action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In diversity
actions, the law that is applicable to a state-law claim
filed in state court is also applicable to such a claim filed
in a federal court. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304
U.S. 64 (1938). In Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326
U.S. 99 (1945), the Supreme Court applied that principle to
statutes of limitations on the theory that, where one is
barred from recovery in the state court, he should likewise
be barred in the federal court.
sues Defendant Horizon Bank on state-law tort claims of
negligence and fraud. The period of limitations for claims of
to rtious injury to persons or property is three years. Mich.
Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10). Under Michigan law, the
statute of limitations begins to run when “all of the
elements of an action for personal injury, including the
element of damages, are present.” Connelly v. Paul
Ruddy's Equipment Repair & Service Co., 200
N.W.2d 70, 72 (Mich. 1972). The elements which must be
(1) The existence of a legal duty by defendant towards
(2) The breach of such duty.
(3) A proximate causal relationship between the breach of
such duty and an ...