United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Paul L. Maloney
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kent United States Magistrate Judge
a an action brought by pro se plaintiff Angel
Bartlett against the following defendants: Drug Enforcement
Agency; Unknown Party(ies) #1; Unknown Party(ies) #2; Richard
Santoni; Allegan County; Kalamazoo County; Van Buren County;
Kent County; Ottawa County; Michigan State Police;
“District Court”; and, “all police in
area”. See Compl. (ECF No. 1). For the reasons
discussed below, this matter should be dismissed.
Angel Bartlett has filed a number of lawsuits in this Court
since June 2017. Like her other complaints filed in this
Court, plaintiff's present complaint is rambling, quite
difficult to follow, and makes little sense:
DEA - all area police. The actions that have been done need
to be prosecuted. Kalamazoo wants to put it on Allegan and
Allegan wants to put it on Van Buren, and all back and forth.
They want to all put it on the Michigan State Police. I hold
all of them liable for the gross negligence of their actions
they have done. They have caused my entire life harm. I
demand resolution to the issues at hand. I want my life
restored and compensation.
I bet [sic] hit with charges every few hours at time [sic]
during the night all for the mental illness programs and
holds they have on me.
I have no Attorney no way to get this issue resolved. They
tortured me as a prostitute when I was homeless for years. I
demand compensation for that also. [T]his is so wrongful I
was celebate [sic] for 20 months and the [sic] made me report
everything only to say I was delusional.
Compl. (ECF No. 1). Since filing her complaint, plaintiff has
filed over 800 pages of papers in this Court, including a
“brief” and multiple “supplements”
and “exhibits.” See ECF Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27 and 28.
complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
“[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, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999).
It is well-established that this Court has a duty to read a
pro se plaintiff's complaint indulgently.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Kent
v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1223-24 (6th Cir. 1987).
Here, however, even the most liberal reading of
plaintiff's allegations cannot be construed as setting
forth a cause of action against the six defendants. The
vague, attenuated, unsubstantial and implausible allegations
set forth in plaintiff's complaint are insufficient to
establish subject matter jurisdiction in this court.
Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
these reasons, I respectfully recommend that plaintiff's
complaint be DISMISSED.
further recommend that plaintiff be denied the privilege of
proceeding in forma pauperis in any future ...