Cheaitou v. Humphries

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING 4 Request for Service of the Initiating Document by U.S. Marshal filed by Assaad M Cheaitou, GRANTING 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by Assaad M Cheaitou, DENYING 3 Application for Appointment of Counsel filed by Assaad M Cheaitou AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ASSAAD M. CHEAITOU,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-15211
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
PAULA C. HUMPHRIES,
Defendant.
/

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 16, 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], an application for appointment of counsel [dkt 3] and a request for service [dkt
4] on December 23, 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 4].
B. APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff also requested that the Court appoint counsel on his behalf. “Appointment of
counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by
exceptional circumstances.” Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605–06 (6th Cir. 1993) (citations
omitted). Plaintiff has not shown here that exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of
counsel exist. Therefore, Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel [dkt 3] is DENIED.
C. 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).

2

Here, Plaintiff Assaad M. Cheaitou (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se complaint alleging a
Detroit police officer improperly issued Plaintiff a citation for not providing a Detroit Public
Vehicle License while working as a cab driver.

Defendant Judge Paula G. Humphries

(“Defendant”) allegedly found Plaintiff guilty of this offense, even though Plaintiff asserts that
he was informed the police officer had no right to issue him this citation.
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 application for appointment of counsel [dkt
3] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for service [dkt 4] 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 16, 2014

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

3