Emerson v. UA Local 50 et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting pltf's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 and DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH EMERSON,
Case No. 16-11506
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
UA LOCAL 50, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS [2] AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and
affidavit and GRANTS his request to proceed in forma pauperis. [2] For the reasons that
follow, however, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).
The standards governing in forma pauperis motions are set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). The district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action without the
prepayment of fees or costs by a person who submits an affidavit that he “is unable to pay
such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff claims that he has
very minimal savings, no real estate or other assets of significant value, and is only
employed on a temporary basis. Based on this affidavit, the Court grants Plaintiff’s
application to proceed without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Even when a plaintiff establishes indigence, the district court must screen the
complaint as mandated by Congress in § 1915(e)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). Specifically, the district court
is obligated to dismiss a civil complaint if it is “frivolous . . .; [or] fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted." § 1915(e)(2)(B).
As a preliminary matter, the Court is not convinced that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint. "[F]ederal courts have a continuing obligation to
inquire into the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction to satisfy themselves that jurisdiction to
entertain an action exists." Campanella v. Commerce Exch. Bank, 137 F.3d 885, 891 (6th
Cir. 1998). "This duty applies irrespective of the parties' failure to raise a jurisdictional
challenge on their own, and if jurisdiction is lacking, dismissal is mandatory." Id. (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims "arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as well as "all
civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and
is between [] citizens of different States[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff's complaint fails to
identify a plausible cause of action arising under federal law. Nor does Plaintiff allege that
the parties are citizens of different states. Where, as here, Plaintiff has failed to assert a
plausible jurisdictional hook permitting this Court to exercise its power over Defendants, it
must, and does, dismiss all claims against them.
Moreover, while the Court is mindful that a pro se litigant’s complaint is held to “less
stringent standards” than a complaint drafted by counsel, it must contain facts sufficient to
show that a redressable legal wrong has been committed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Dismissal is appropriate where "the claim
2

is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory[.]" Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600
(6th Cir. 1998). Here, Plaintiff contends that the "fbi rigged my ex-wife and sister jobs local
50 and pipefitter book 2001 to 2014. [T]his is a violation 14th amendment from not using
[A]mericans to sexual discrimination . . . . " (Compl. ¶ 1). To the extent that Plaintiff is
attempting to construct some kind of equal protection claim, the Fourteenth Amendment
"governs only state action, not the actions of private citizens or organizations." Brown v.
Hatch, 984 F. Supp. 2d 700, 707 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (citing Rendell–Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S.
830, 837-38 (1982)). Furthermore, dismissal is appropriate when the allegations of a
compliant "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).
Plaintiff's complaint fits squarely within Apple's mandate. For that reason, the Court must,
and does, DISMISS the complaint. This order closes the case in its entirety.1

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: May 10, 2016

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed at least four other actions in this District that
have been dismissed on similar grounds. See Emerson v. Exclusive Auto, et al., 16-10682
(Hood, J); Emerson v. UAW Local 50, et al., 16-10851 (Friedman, J); Emerson v. UA Local
50, et al., 16-10981 (Leitman, J); Emerson v. City Manager, et al., 16-11507 (Hood, J).
Plaintiff is strongly advised to review Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before
filing future lawsuits to prevent against the imposition of monetary or injunctive sanctions.
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on May 10, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

4