Brooks v. Glynn

Filing 4

ORDER GRANTING IFP; DISMISSING CASE; DENYING APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PATRICIA BROOKS,
Plaintiff,

CASE NUMBER: 13-14420
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
EDMOUND GLYNN,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
On October 21, 2013, Plaintiff Patricia Brooks filed a pro se complaint against
Edmound Glynn. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an
application for appointment of counsel.
The Court GRANTS the application to proceed in forma pauperis. This action is
DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failing to state a claim
on which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel is
DENIED.
Plaintiff’s complaint is comprised of disconnected allegations; it does not contain
any requested relief. Although her complaint, for the most part, is incomprehensible, it
appears that Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Glynn: (1) was “coming” and
“going” from her hotel room in Arizona; (2) “has been fatal to [her] bad health”; (3) “has
beat and raped 15 grand child (sic) for to (sic) many years”; and (4) “ordered a hit on
Terrance Brooks.” Plaintiff also says she has never met Glynn.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any action filed in
1

forma pauperis that is factually frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
suit. Factual frivolousness includes allegations that are “clearly baseless,” “fantastic,” or
“delusional.” See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as it is fantastic,
delusional, and clearly baseless. Since Plaintiff does not request any relief, the
complaint also fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
In addition, Plaintiff fails to allege any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff does not state any claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States,” so the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. The Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on
diversity, either, since Plaintiff fails to state her citizenship or Glynn’s, and she does not
allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED and her application for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: October 29, 2013

2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
October 29, 2013.
S/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3