Wright v. Capital One Auto Finance

Filing 4

ORDER Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dynell Wright El Tribe
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-10432

Capital One Auto Finance, et al.,

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Acting pro se, Plaintiff Dynell Wright El Tribe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Capital
One Auto Finance and Dave Lawson, d/b/a CEO of Capital One Auto Finance.1
Indigent litigants may request a waiver of filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but such
requests must be accompanied by an “affidavit that includes a statement of all assets.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff has provided such an affidavit and, having reviewed Plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the applicable statute requires this Court
to dismiss this case, at any time, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) (“the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that” the
action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”). In addition, even where a plaintiff

1

A similar complaint filed by this plaintiff against these defendants was dismissed as
frivolous by Judge Victoria A. Roberts on January 23, 2015. (Wright v. Capital One Auto
Finance, et al., Case No. 14-14783, Doc. #4).

has paid the filing fee, “a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when
the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid
of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d. 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999)
(emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants violated the “gold clause” statute, 31
U.S.C. § 5118, as well as PL 37-10, UCC 3-603 and 18 U.S.C. § 8 by “refusing to properly adjust
[plaintiff’s] account causing overpayment in the amount of $2,778.89.” Because these allegations
are totally implausible, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Given this ruling, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for preliminary
injunction/TRO (Compl., Doc. #1, at Ex. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2015

S/ Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on February 17, 2015, the foregoing document was served on counsel of
record via electronic means and upon Dynell Wright El Tribe via First Class mail at the address
below:
Dynell El Tribe Wright
10974 Roxbury
Detroit, MI 48205
S/ J. McCoy
Case Manager

2