Mitchell v. Franklin Law Group PSC

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Upon initial screening of the complaint, the instant action will be dismissed by separate Order. Signed by Judge David J. Hale. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
JAMES MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16cv-280-DJH

FRANKLIN LAW GROUPS PSC,

Defendant.
* * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff James Mitchell filed this pro se action. He also filed an application to proceed
without the prepayment of fees (DN 3), which is GRANTED. This matter is now before the
Court on initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007). Upon initial screening of the complaint, the instant action will be
dismissed for the reasons that follow.
I.
Plaintiff filed the complaint on the Court’s general complaint form. In the caption, he
lists Franklin Law Groups PSC as the only Defendant. In the portion of the form where
Defendants are to be listed, Plaintiff writes, “EMERGENCEY SYC Personel.” In the section of
the form related to diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff lists Defendants as “U of L Hospital” and
“Commonwealth” and describes the amount in controversy as “$84. B. ATT. Host + Murder in
the first Dergee.” Where the complaint form asks Plaintiff to list the specific federal statutes or
constitutional provisions that are at issue in this case, Plaintiff states, “A – 153 ATT. HOSTILE
TAKEOVER 3:19 + 187 Perephiala AND HOMICDE ILLEGALLY Detained 34:80[b]
PLAGERIZN 17.,I[.]”

As his statement of the claim, Plaintiff states, “BROKEN foot., BROKEN BACK.,
BROKEN WRIST., ATT. BROKEN EY CAVITY Ileagglly Insamnating public & myself[.]” In
the relief section of the complaint form, Plaintiff states, “PAID WIDTH & DIMISSAL
Disorderly Persons CHARGES AS WELL TREPASSING. Relurn of PLAINTIFFS’ property
MORE OWE accelerg all o whom compelled.”
II.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the instant
action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); McGore, 114 F.3d at 608-09. Upon review, the Court must dismiss
a case at any time if it determines that an action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as
frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. In this case, the complaint contains no legal theories
upon which a valid federal claim may rest, and the allegations are baseless. Therefore, the Court
will dismiss the action on the basis of frivolousness. See Abner v. SBC (Ameritech), 86 F. App’x
958, 958-59 (6th Cir. 2004).
In addition, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The complaint also fails to meet this basic pleading standard. See
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (indicating that the short and plain
statement of claim must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

2

grounds upon which it rests’”) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated on
other grounds by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).
For the foregoing reasons, the instant action will be dismissed by separate Order.
Date:

June 8, 2016

David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4415.010

3