Solomon et al v. Macomb County Corporation et al

Filing 8

OPINION and ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARTIN SOLOMON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 12-cv-14537
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

vs.
MACOMB COUNTY
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
Before the court is plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis complaint [docket entry 1]. For the
following reasons, the court shall dismiss the complaint because it is frivolous and/or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards” than those drafted by lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, the court is required by statute to dismiss
an in forma pauperis complaint if it
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In other words, a complaint is frivolous if
“based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or “clearly baseless” facts or “a legal interest
which clearly does not exist” or “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28. To avoid
-1-

dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v.
Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Further,
the court is required to dismiss the complaint, whether or not plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
In this case, the court is unable to discern the factual basis of plaintiffs’ complaint.
Plaintiffs seemingly maintain that defendants conspired to commit fraud through a failure to disclose
information related to the issuance of criminal bonds. Plaintiffs, however, do not explain how
defendants perpetrated this fraud or the nature of their involvement. Without this necessary
information, the present action cannot proceed any further. See generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009).
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).

Dated: December 13, 2012
Detroit, Michigan

S/ Bernard A. Friedman___________________
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-