Miller v. Mongan et al

Filing 3

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and DISMISSING Plaintiff's 1 Complaint Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SELINA MILLER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-14689
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
BRIDGETT MONGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (ECF #2) AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff Selina Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
against seven individual defendants and “Job Family Services.”

(See the

“Complaint,” ECF #1.) Plaintiff’s handwritten Complaint, in its entirety, reads as
follows:
1. Each Individual has falsely made statements about the
plaintiff Selina Miller.
2. Each defendant has falsely alleged the plaintiff is an
associate to receive funds not distributed to the
family/plaintiff.
3. Each defendant has communicated with plaintiff’s
health/medical providers falsely alleging they supportive
[sic] caregivers for false reported resources.

Relief
1. Punitive Damages = $1 million
2. Compensatory Damages = $1 million
3. Review of Michigan Family Privacy Act laws
(Complaint at 1-2.) Plaintiff has also filed an Application to Proceed in District
Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (See the “Application,” ECF #2.)
A. The Court Grants Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Federal law allows a court to authorize a litigant to proceed without
prepaying fees or costs, or in forma pauperis, when the litigant “submits an
affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the
person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”

28 U.S.C.

§1915(a)(1). If an application to proceed in forma pauperis is accompanied by a
facially sufficient affidavit, the Court should grant the application. See Gibson v.
R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990). The Court has reviewed
Plaintiff’s Application and finds that it “contains allegations of poverty sufficient
to allow [her] to proceed without prepayment of costs.” Id. at 262. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis.
B. The Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint.
This Court must read a pro se Complaint, such as the one Plaintiff filed here,
liberally and employ “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, federal courts

2

are always “under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction,”
and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction.
FEW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990). In fact, a federal court
must dismiss an action if it determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Wagenknecht v. U.S., 533 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2008)
(“a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action when it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction”). The burden of establishing this Court’s jurisdiction “rests upon the
party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994).
Even construing Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, the Court is unable to
determine if the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff’s
Complaint appears to allege that the Defendants made false statements about
Plaintiff and/or received funds intended for Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff does not
appear to base her Complaint on any federal statute or authority. Nor does she
allege that the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. Because
the Court cannot discern a basis for its subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Wagenknecht, supra.

3

For all the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Application (ECF #2) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
#1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 29, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 29, 2014, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4