Belser et al v. Evans et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 15 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 16 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARVIN BELSER, SR., ET AL.,
Case Number: 2:16-cv-12792
HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

Plaintiff,
v.
VONDA EVANS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 14, 15 & 16)
Plaintiff Marvin Belser, Sr., filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
named two defendants, Wayne County Circuit Court Judges Vonda Evans and Sheila Ann
Gibson Manning. He challenged the Defendants’ decisions related to a child protective
services case and his criminal trial and claimed that their actions violated Michigan’s
Public Health Code. The Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court also dismissed
the five additional plaintiffs named by Plaintiff because they did not sign the complaint
and there was no indication that the additional plaintiffs were even aware that the
complaint had been filed. Now before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has filed two motions for leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos.
15 &16). “[A] district court may not permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).” Moniz v. Hines, 92 F. App’x 208, 212 (6th Cir.

2004). Section 1915 “also proscribes a district court from permitting a plaintiff to amend
his complaint after that court has dismissed the complaint under § 1915(e)(2).” Id.
(emphasis in original). The ban on amending a complaint after dismissal under §
1915(e)(2) applies without regard to whether the amendment would cure the deficiencies
in the original complaint. Id. at n.5. The Court denies leave to amend. In his first motion
to file amended complaint (ECF No. 15), Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. The Court already held that any appeal could not be taken in good
faith and denied in forma pauperis status on that basis. See 10/4/16 Order (ECF No. 11).
Nothing in Petitioner’s motion warrants reconsideration of that decision and the Court
denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may still seek leave from the Sixth
Circuit Cuort of Appeals to proceed in forma pauperis under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Attorney for Counsel and to Request a Jury Trial
is moot because the complaint has been dismissed.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and Request a Jury
Trial (ECF No. 14), Motion to Filed an Amended Complaint or to File Sixth Circuit In
Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 15), and Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 16).
SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 19, 2016

2