Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bartlett v. Drug Enforcement Agency

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 11, 2018

ANGEL BARTLETT, Plaintiff,
v.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, et al, Defendants.

          Hon. Paul L. Maloney

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge

         This is 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.

         I. Discussion

         Plaintiff Angel Bartlett has filed a number of lawsuits in this Court since June 2017.[1] 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.[2]

         Plaintiff's 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).

         II. RECOMMENDATION

         For these reasons, I respectfully recommend that plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED.

         I further recommend that plaintiff be denied the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in any future ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.