Tillman v. Meijer Store - Portage et al

Filing 4

OPINION and ORDER granting 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and dismissing 1 Complaint Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW FOREST TILLMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 15-cv-10091
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

MEIJER, MARK DEGOEDE, AARON
HAM, ALAN KOENIG, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT

This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis [docket entry 2]. For the following reasons, the Court shall (1) grant the application and
therefore allow the complaint to be filed without prepayment of the filing fee, and (2) dismiss the
complaint because it is frivolous and/or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may permit a person to commence a
lawsuit without prepaying the filing fee, provided the person submits an affidavit demonstrating that
he/she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” In the present case, plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis makes the required showing of indigence. The Court shall
therefore grant the application and permit the complaint to be filed without requiring plaintiff to
prepay the filing fee.
Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards” than those drafted by lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, the Court is required by statute to dismiss
an in forma pauperis complaint if it

(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In other words, a complaint is frivolous if
“based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or “clearly baseless” facts or “a legal interest
which clearly does not exist” or “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28. To avoid
dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v.
Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Further,
the Court is required to dismiss the complaint, whether or not plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
In the present case, plaintiff alleges that defendants subjected him to false arrest and
malicious prosecution in violation of his constitutional rights.1 For these alleged violations, plaintiff
seeks to recover monetary damages.
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,
a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that
relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so
invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.

1

Given the nature of the allegations in plaintiff’s pro se complaint, the Court
construes these allegations as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff has failed to allege
whether the underlying conviction, which gave rise to his allegations of false arrest and malicious
prosecution, was ever “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by
a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. As such, plaintiff has failed to plead a
cognizable § 1983 claim. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is granted. The complaint is filed and the filing fee need not be prepaid.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

Dated: January 21, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

_s/ Bernard A. Friedman_______
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3