United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Steven Whalen, Mag. Judge.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 2] AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO.
Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Judge.
se Plaintiff Sexual Sin De Un Abdul Blue filed an in
forma pauperis suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). Plaintiff's allegations are
sparse and unclear, but it appears he alleges Defendant Doug
Van Francis Orsdall breached a co-ownership contract that
detailed the breeding and care of a male American Kennel Club
registered Chinses Shar Peris named “Sir Blackie of
Sexual Blue.” Plaintiff requests enforcement of the
contract states that Defendant paid Plaintiff $1, 200 for
co-ownership of Sir Blackie. In return, Plaintiff agreed to
the following conditions: (1) Plaintiff provided Defendant
with the original registration of the dog; (2) Defendant took
“full responsibility for said dog and agrees to provide
quality nutrition, pay all medical expenses and showing
expenses when showing said dog;” (3) Defendant agreed
“in case of accident or injury to notify co-owner
[Plaintiff] immediately;” (4) Plaintiff consented that
“the decision of whether or not said dog will be bred
is at the full discretion of owner [Defendant];” (5)
Plaintiff agreed that “the marketing and sales of all
puppies will be at the discretion of owner
[Defendant];” and (6) Defendant allowed Plaintiff to
have the first right of refusal, if he became unable to care
for the dog. [ECF No. 6, PageID.51-52].
asserts six claims: count I (tortious interference with an
advantageous business relationship or expectancy), count II
(breach of contract), count III (unjust enrichment), count IV
(conversion), count V (fraudulent misrepresentation), and
count VI (injunctive relief).
did not pay the filing fee and filed an “Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” The Court
1892, Congress enacted an in forma pauperis statute
“to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful
access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, (1989) (citing Adkins
v. E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342-43
(1948)). Proceeding in forma pauperis is a
privilege, not a right. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d
596, 603 (6th Cir.1998); Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d
1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991).
must construe pro se pleadings liberally. Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364. 365 (1982); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519. 520 (1972). However, a court must
dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that it
determines to be frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
pro se complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468. 470-71 (6th
Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard articulated
in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)). Additionally, federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to police the
boundaries of their own jurisdiction. Answers in Genesis
of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Intern., Ltd.,
556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009).
Court summarily dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint
because the allegations, even liberally construed, do not
state plausible claims.
claims of fraud in the inducement, unjust enrichment, and
breach of contract are patently refuted by the express terms
of the contract; Plaintiff is also not entitled to relief for
“conversion” and “tortious interference
with an advantageous business relationship and
Count I- Tortious Interference with an Advantageous Business