Wright v. Hagerman et al

Filing 4

ORDER Granting request to proceed IFP; Denying request for service and Dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JUAN MONROE WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-15071
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
STEVE HAGERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

/
OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on January 10, 2014
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff submitted his pro se complaint [dkt 1], an application to proceed in forma
pauperis [dkt 2], and a request for service [dkt 3] on December 13, 2013. For the following
reasons, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and his pro se complaint
is DISMISSED.
II. ANALYSIS
A. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a), “any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or
defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by
a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses
that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The reference to assets of

“such prisoner” is likely a typographical error; thus, § 1915(a) applies to all natural persons. See
Floyd v. U.S. Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 1997). If a motion to proceed without
prepayment of fees is filed and accompanied by a facially-sufficient affidavit, the Court should
allow the complaint to be filed. See Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990)
(citing Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir. 1981)). Only after the complaint is filed is
it tested to determine whether it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. See id. at 261.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s financial affidavit facially sufficient; therefore, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt 2].
B. REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Upon considering a plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court performs a
preliminary screening of the complaint under several provisions of the United States Code.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), the Court is to sua
sponte dismiss the case before service on a defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The Court has a duty to construe a pro se
plaintiff’s pleadings liberally, see, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), but in doing so, it
will not re-write a deficient complaint or otherwise serve as counsel for that plaintiff. See GJR
Invs, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998).
Here, Plaintiff Juan Monroe Wright (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se complaint against
Defendants Steve Hagerman, Westside Brick, LLC, and Wayne County Circuit Court Chief
Judge Virgil C Smith (“Defendants”).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “attempted to

fraudulently convey the Plaintiff’s non corporate domicile.” Plaintiff’s complaint further states
that Defendant Smith injured Plaintiff by “destroying evidence from the court file which caused

2

Plaintiff to become injured.” Plaintiff requests this Court to cancel “the sale” and grant Plaintiff
$350,000.00 in damages.
Despite Plaintiff’s requests, the Court cannot discern any recognizable claim contained
within Plaintiff’s various filings.

Plaintiff provides no factual basis or other background

information through which his sorted allegations may be supported. Additionally, Plaintiff
provides no information as to which “sale” he is referring, or any information as to how the
Defendants are involved in any such sale. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and thus is dismissed without prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis [dkt 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for service [dkt 3] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [dkt 1] is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 10, 2014

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
U.S. District Court

3