Sahattchieve v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Filing 7

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JORDAN ANTONOV SAHATTCHIEVE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-13560

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT
I.
Plaintiff Jordan Antonov Sahattchieve, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint
naming Wells Fargo Bank, NA as defendant.
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Based upon the information in the
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, GRANTS
plaintiff in forma pauperis (IFP) status. For the reasons that follow, however, the
complaint will be dismissed.
II.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) a Court may dismiss a complaint at any time if
it determines that the case is frivolous or malicious, that the plaintiff fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. This section “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce

the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” Id. at 327. In order to determine whether dismissal
under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is appropriate, it must be determined whether the plaintiff's
complaint “makes an arguable legal claim and whether it is based on rational facts.”
Lawler v. Marshall 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). A complaint "is frivolous where
it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989).
Moreover, a federal court is always “under an independent obligation to examine
their own jurisdiction,” FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990), and a
federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction. See
Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694,
701 (1982). Indeed, a court is required to dismiss an action at any time if it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); See Wagenknecht v. United
States, 533 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2008) (“a district court may sua sponte dismiss an
action when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”).
The Court must read pro se complaints indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
III.
The Court has reviewed the complaint. From what can be gleaned, while in
Bulgaria, plaintiff directed Allianz Bank to issue a check in the amount of $700 which
was intended to pay off the balance on plaintiff’s Chase credit card. Allianz withdrew
the amount, plus a fee, from plaintiff’s account and sent it “via an Electronic Funds
2

Transfer” to Wells Fargo. Plaintiff says that despite receiving the transfer, Wells Fargo
has not released the $700 to Chase.
Taking the above allegations as true, plaintiff has not identified a proper basis for
federal jurisdiction, based either on federal question or diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff indicates that jurisdiction is based on federal question and
references the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), specifically claiming a violation of
“Section 302(a)(1) of Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code.” The UCC, however,
is not a federal statute. Thus, there is no jurisdiction based on a federal question. At
best plaintiff may be making a claim under Michigan’s Uniform Commercial Code. See
M.C.L. § 440.4802. Even assuming plaintiff has a cause of action under Michigan law,
there does not appear to be diversity jurisdiction. Although plaintiff suggests that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, a read of the complaint shows that the amount
at issue is far less.
V.
Overall, even under a liberal pleading standard, the complaint fails to establish a
basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Further, any appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 27, 2016
Detroit, Michigan
3