Wright El v. Carlson et al

Filing 4

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (Ciesla, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DYNELL WRIGHT EL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-10281

GENE CARLSON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Michael Wright El, who is currently under an eviction order, filed a
handwritten complaint against Wayne County Circuit Court Chief Judge Virgil C. Smith,
his former landlord Detroit Investor LLC, and the company’s agent Gene Carlson.
Plaintiff alleges copyright claims for using his name without permission and unlawful
attempts to convey property. Contemporaneous to filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will grant Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),1 and then dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which the court can grant relief,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Complaints filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to the
screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863,
1

In his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff states that he is
unemployed and that he has no money in any account. He lists “9737 Lakepointe” as
an asset but this is the same address listed on the eviction order. Accordingly, the
court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1).

866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss
complaints that are frivolous, that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997).
A complaint is frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it
lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must show, construing the
complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepting all the factual
allegations as true, Evans-Marshall v. Board of Educ., 428 F.3d 223, 228 (6th Cir.
2005), “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as
true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.
Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
“The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Thus, “a pleading
that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). To avoid dismissal, Plaintiff’s complaint must

cross “the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that “Gene Carlson falsely claims to have gained interest in property . . .
Carlson also has committed copyright infringement using Michael Wright’s name
without license.” (Pg. ID # 2.) However, Plaintiff alleges no facts to support these
causes of action. Instead, Plaintiff’s allegations can be described as “fantastic or
delusional.” Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 923 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327–28)). Because Plaintiff does not have even an arguable claim to relief, the
court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. # 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [Dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 13, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, February 13, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

Q:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\14-10281.WRIGHT.1915.Dismissal.rljr.wpd