Giza v. United States of America

Filing 3

ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Order of Summary Dismissal, and Finding Any Appel Frivolous. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK JAMES GIZA,1
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 15-11203
v.
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS,
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL,
AND
FINDING ANY APPEAL FRIVOLOUS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark James Giza’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs. A review of the application supports his claim of pauper
status. The Court grants in forma pauperis status to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fee for this action. However, for the reasons set forth below, the Court
dismisses the Complaint against Defendant.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court may
dismiss a complaint before service on a defendant if it is satisfied that the action is

1

Plaintiff Mark James Giza apparently has filed a previous case, Giza v. United States,
Case No. 09-13266 before the Honorable Robert H. Cleland, alleging claims under the Clayton
and Sherman Acts. The case was summarily dismissed on August 27, 2009. (Case No. 0913266, Doc. No. 4)

frivolous, malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants who is/are immune from
such relief. A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous “where it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, the Sixth Circuit clarified the procedures a district court
must follow when faced with a civil action filed by a non-prisoner proceeding in
forma pauperis:
Unlike prisoner cases, complaints by non-prisoners are not
subject to the screening process required by § 1915A.
However, the district court must still screen the complaint
under § 1915(e)(2) ... Section 1915(e)(2) provides us with
the ability to screen these, as well as prisoner cases that
satisfy the requirements of this section. The screening must
occur even before process is served or the individual has
had an opportunity to amend the complaint. The complaint
must be dismissed if it falls within the requirements of §
1915(e)(2) when filed.
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997)(overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)); Smith v. Bernanke, 283 Fed. Appx.
356, 357 (6th Cir. Jun. 26, 2008). Federal courts hold the pro se complaint to a “less
stringent standard” than those drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972).
Giza asserts that he is a religious leader and apparently is attempting to
establish tribal citizenship. (Comp., Doc. No. 1, Pg ID 2, 7) Giza alleges he has
2

received fines from traffic tickets, has been arrested and jailed because he is unable
to pay the fines. Id. at Pg ID 4-5. He asserts that “this is really frustrating and violent
and its coming to the point to where we will have to be violent in return.” Id. at Pg
ID 5. Giza seeks the following relief:
The relief requested is this corporate entity be placed into
federal probate until tribal citizenship is established, I can
and will provide clear and convincing evidence of my claim
of tribal status. I am requesting total sanction and
temporary identity and legal provisions of food and
monatary (sic) assistance until this is resolved. I ONLY
ASK FOR BASIC NECESSITIES as you would give
resident alien while acquiring citizenship. I wish to file a
federal protection order on my Human Body and corporate
entity until we can resolve these issues. ...
(Comp., Doc. No. 1, Pg ID 7)
A liberal reading of Giza’s Complaint shows that he has failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Under the principle of sovereign immunity, “the
United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent
is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983).
“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its
agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Giza has not met his
burden that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity as to the claims
alleged in the Complaint. The claims alleged in the Complaint lack arguable basis
either in law or in fact.
3

For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Mark James Giza’s Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Any Appeal of this Order would be frivolous and would not be taken
in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962), McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: May 28, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on May 28, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4