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.

Sexual Sin De Un Abdul Blue v. Van Francis Orsdall

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

December 19, 2019

SEXUAL SIN DE UN ABDUL BLUE, Plaintiff,
v.
DOUG VAN FRANCIS ORSDALL, Defendant.

          R. 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. 6]

          Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

         Pro 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.

         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].

         Plaintiff 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).

         II. ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and filed an “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” The Court allows it.

         In 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).

         Courts 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).

         A 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).

         The Court summarily dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint because the allegations, even liberally construed, do not state plausible claims.

         Plaintiff's 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 expectancy.”

         1. Count I- Tortious Interference with an Advantageous Business ...


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.