Shannon v. Thor Real Estate LLC

Filing 7

ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs and (2) Dismissing Plaintiff's 6 Amended Complaint Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JENNETTE SHANNON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-12904
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
THOR REAL ESTATE, LLC
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS (ECF #2) AND (2)
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF #6)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff Jennette Shannon (“Shannon”) filed this action
against Defendant Thor Real Estate, LLC (“Thor”). (See Compl., ECF #1.) In her
Complaint, Shannon appears to allege that Thor committed fraud with respect to a
home she purchased in Detroit. (See id. at 2, Pg. ID 2.) Along with her complaint,
Shannon filed an application to proceed in this action without the prepayment of
fees or costs (the “Application”). (See ECF #2.) On August 11, 2016, this Court
issued an order (the “Show Cause Order”) requiring Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint or to show cause in writing why her action should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See ECF #4.) In response to the Show Cause
Order, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) on
1

August 31, 2016.

(See ECF #6).

For the reasons stated below, the Court

GRANTS the Application and DISMISSES the Amended Complaint WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
I
Applications to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs are
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That statute provides that a federal court
“may authorize the commencement ... of any suit, action, or proceeding ... by a
person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets ... that the
person is unable to pay such fees....” Id.
In the Application, Shannon states that she has no savings, no real estate or
other assets of significant value, and no gross pay or wages. (See Application at 12, Pg. ID 13-14.) Further, Shannon states that she is homeless and supports a
minor dependent. (Id.) The Court has reviewed the Application and is satisfied
that the prepayment of the filing fee would cause an undue financial hardship on
Shannon. The Court therefore grants the Application and permits Shannon to file
her Complaint without prepaying the filing fee.
II
When a plaintiff is allowed to proceed without the prepayment of fees or
costs, the Court is required to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it (i) asserts
frivolous or malicious claims, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
2

granted, and/or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While the Court must liberally construe
documents filed by a pro se plaintiff, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972), a complaint filed by such a plaintiff must still plead sufficient specific
factual allegations, and not just legal conclusions, in support of each claim. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–679 (2009); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470–471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard of Iqbal applies
to a Court's review of a complaint under § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim).
Moreover, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. This Court has
jurisdiction over (1) “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States” (28 U.S.C. § 1331 – “federal question jurisdiction”)
and (2) “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 –
“diversity jurisdiction”). The Court is obligated to consider sua sponte in every
action whether it has subject matter jurisdiction and to dismiss the action if it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Lewis, 398 F.3d 735, 739 (6th Cir.
2005); See also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3).
Despite the Court’s instructions in the Show Cause Order, Shannon has
failed to allege in her Amended Complaint the facts necessary to establish that this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. Indeed, Shannon has failed
3

to plead either that (1) she and the defendants are citizens of different states and
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 or (2) her claims arise under
federal law such that federal question jurisdiction exists.1
Shannon has also failed to plead the existence of “diversity jurisdiction.” To
properly plead “diversity jurisdiction,” Shannon must plead that she and Thor are
citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
For diversity purposes, a limited liability company like Thor is a citizen of each
State in which a member of the limited liability company is a citizen. See V & M
Star, 596 F.3d at 356; Trident-Allied Assocs., LLC v. Cypress Creek Assocs., LLC.,
317 F. Supp. 2d 752, 753 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“For purposes of diversity, the
citizenship of limited liability companies is the citizenship of each of its
members.”). Here, Shannon has not identified in her Amended Complaint any
members of Thor nor pleaded their respective citizenships. The allegations of
record are therefore insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Complaint
(ECF #6) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3). The Court certifies that any

1

The Amended Complaint does state that an “Affidavit will prove facts that THOR
REAL ESTATE, LLC is in violation of 18 U.S. CODE 1028.” (See ECF #6 at 5,
Pg. ID 26.) However, 18 U.S.C. 1028 is a federal criminal statute that does not
create a private cause of action. See 18 U.S.C. §1028.
4

appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 25, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on October 25, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5