Lain v. FBI et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER denying 5 Motion Reinstate Case. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Robert Lain,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-11136

FBI, et al.,

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF ROBERT LAIN’S MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE [DOCKET
ENTRY NO. 5]
Before this Court is Plaintiff Robert Lain’s (“the Plaintiff”) Motion to Reinstate Case
[Docket Entry No. 5]. This action was previously dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. (Docket Entry No. 4.) This Court finds that the issues have been adequately
presented in the parties’ briefs and that oral argument would not significantly aid the decision
making process. See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan.
Accordingly, this Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided on the briefs. For the
reasons that follow, this Court shall DENY the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Case [Docket Entry
No. 5].
On March 14, 2013, acting pro se, Plaintiff filed this action against the FBI, NASA, the
Detroit Police Department, President Barack Obama and HUD (collectively “Defendants”),
contending that the Defendants are using satellites to control his thoughts and to discriminate against

1

him. (Docket Entry No. 1.)
On that same day, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and an
Application for Appointment of Counsel Financial Affidavit. (Docket Entry Nos. 2–3.)
This Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, this
Court dismissed that action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that
“Plaintiff’s complaint consists of an incoherent stream of words and suspicions, involving a
conspiracy on the part of the Defendants to use satellites to implant discriminatory phrases into
Plaintiff’s mind. Even with a liberal reading of the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, this Court
is unable to discern any claims with a rational or arguable basis in law. Plaintiff’s claims are totally
implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”
(Docket Entry No. 4, at 2.)
On May 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reinstate Case [Docket Entry No. 5], which
contains no facts or legal argument; instead, that “motion” consists entirely of several handwritten
notations made by the Plaintiff on copies of some previous filings in this action. It is unclear what
the Plaintiff is attempting to argue in his motion. For example, noted on the copy of the Application
for Appointment of Counsel and the Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and
Dismissing Complaint is the phrase, “Reinstatement new court order plus old.” (Docket Entry No.
5, at 7, 13.) Likewise, on the copy of the Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
and Dismissing Complaint, Plaintiff appears to write “racial discrimination” (Id. at 13.) This Court
does find any of the “arguments” in the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Case convincing.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Case [Docket Entry No.
2

5] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2013

S/ Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Court Judge

I hereby certify that on May 16, 2013, the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record by electronic means and upon Robert Lain by First Class Mail at the address below:
Robert Lain
7722 Dexter
Detroit, MI 48206
Dated: May 16, 2013

S/ J. McCoy
Case Manager

3