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.

Riley v. Johnson

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

May 2, 2019

JOLANDA RILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELINA JOHNSON, NICK LYON, and GRETCHEN WHITMER, Defendants.

          David M. Lawson District Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          R. STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jolanda Riley filed a pro se civil complaint in this Court. On January 17, 2009, she was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and on the same day the case was referred to me for pretrial proceedings, including “[s]creening of the complaint to determine if it should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a).” [Doc. #6]. For the reasons discussed below, I recommend that the case be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), as being frivolous and failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         I. FACTS

         Ms. Riley filed her complaint using a form that this Court provides to pro se litigants, Form MIED Pro Se 1. Her introductory paragraph states:

“Defendants failed to follow MCWL Chapter 4, 4.1.1. Placement Procedure and Protocol violating United States Constitution and Michigan claim of libel and defamation and RICO act violations, misuse of authority and $10, 000, 000, 000 U.S. is requested by Plaintiff.”

         Ms. Riley asserts federal question jurisdiction, referring to “RICO act.” Complaint, Doc. #1, Pg. ID 5. Her statement of the claim, at page 6 of the complaint, Pg. ID 6, states in its entirety:

“The Plaintiff brought this claim against the Defendants in their individual capacities for interfering with Plaintiff's right to property as protected in the Constitution of the United States and moves this Court to demand relief sought to Plaintiff in the amount of $10, 000, 000, 000 U.S. and a TRO issue against the Defendants to mitigate ongoing harm or harassment.”

         In the Relief section of the complaint, Pg. ID 7, Plaintiff seeks the following:

“Order Defendants to stay away from Plaintiff's family and pay compensatory damages of $10, 000, 000, 000 U.S. to Plaintiff.”

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Because the Plaintiff requested and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), her complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which provides as follows:

         “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the ...


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.