United States District Court, W.D. Michigan
Janet T. Neff Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
S. CARMODY U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
initiated this matter on April 23, 2019, against Sandy Woods
and State Farm Insurance Agency. Having granted
Plaintiffs' motion to proceed as a pauper, the Court has
conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Having conducted this initial review,
the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' complaint must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough
to raise a right for relief above the speculative level on
the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations
are true.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 545 (2007).
Supreme Court more recently held, to satisfy this Rule, 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). This
plausibility standard “is not akin to a
‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” If the complaint simply pleads facts that
are “merely consistent with” a defendant's
liability, it “stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to
relief.'” Id. As the Court further
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly.
First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice...Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from
the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but
it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff
armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a
complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a
motion to dismiss...Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals
observed, be a context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense. But where the wellpleaded 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
Id. at 1949-50 (internal citations omitted).
evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may
consider the complaint and any exhibits attached thereto,
public records, and items appearing in the record of the
case. See Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic
Assoc., 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008); see
also, Continental Identification Products, Inc. v.
EnterMarket, Corp., 2008 WL 51610 at *1, n.1 (W.D.
Mich., Jan. 2, 2008) (“an exhibit to a pleading is
considered part of the pleading” and “the Court
may properly consider the exhibits. . .in determining whether
the complaint fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted without converting the motion to a Rule 56
motion”); Stringfield v. Graham, 212 Fed.Appx.
530, 535 (6th Cir. 2007) (documents “attached to and
cited by” the complaint are “considered parts
thereof under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c)”).
aver that their vehicle insurance was wrongfully canceled.
Evaluated pursuant to the aforementioned standard, the Court
concludes that any facts alleged in Plaintiffs'
complaint, even if accepted as true, fail to rise to the
standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)
and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007) to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in
this court. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that
Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed with prejudice.
reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that
Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed. The
Court must also decide whether an appeal of this action would
be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). Good faith is judged objectively,
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1961),
and an appeal is not taken in good faith if the issue
presented is frivolous, defined as lacking an arguable basis
either in fact or law. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001). For the same
reasons that the undersigned recommends dismissal of the
action, the undersigned discerns no good faith basis ...