Harris et al v. Bureau of Community and Health Systems et al

Filing 6

ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, and (2) Requiring Plaintiffs to Submit a More Definite Statement. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RALPH HARRIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-13985
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
BUREAU OF COMMUNITY AND
HEALTH SYSTEMS, ET AL,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS (ECF #2), AND
(2) REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO SUBMIT A MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT
On November 10, 2016, Plaintiffs Ralph Harris and Theresa Burnett-Harris
(the “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against the Michigan Bureau of Community and
Health Systems (BCHS), Larry Horvath, and Emilee C. Smith (the “Defendants”).
(See Compl., ECF #1.) Horvath is the Director of BCHS, and Smith is a surveyor in
the Long Term Care Division of BCHS. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff Ralph Harris (“Harris”)
is a resident of Beaconshire Nursing Center. (Id.)
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Harris was “denied procedural due
process” when Smith “did not by required procedure investigate the reported neglect
of Ralph Harris” that allegedly occurred between July 03, 2015 and July 18, 2015.
(Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiffs also allege that Smith “falsified a memorandum dated
1 

December 30, 2015 that she processed into the IT system 162 days after her
investigation of the Complaint on Beaconshire.” (Id.) Plaintiffs claim that Smith
violated a CMS regulation that requires investigation results to be entered into the
system within ten days of the investigation.1 (Id.) Finally, Plaintiffs allege that while
under oath, Smith falsely authenticated the allegedly fraudulent memorandum
during Plaintiffs’ state administrative hearing. (Id.)
Plaintiffs have filed an application to proceed in this action without the
prepayment of fees or costs (the “Application”). (See ECF #2.) Plaintiffs have also
filed a motion for court appointed attorney (the “Motion for Appointed Counsel”).
(See ECF #4.)

For the reasons stated below the Court: (1) GRANTS the

Application; (2) ORDERS Plaintiffs to submit a more definite statement of their
claims and allegations in this action by January 16, 2017; and (3) DENIES the
Motion for Appointed Counsel.
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.

1

Plaintiffs do not cite a specific regulation in support of this claim.
2 

In the Application, Plaintiffs state that they have a total of $50 in savings.
(ECF #2 at 2, Pg. ID 12.) Their sole sources of monthly income are $447 in Social
Security benefits and $473 in supplemental social security income due to Harris’
disability. (Id. at 1, Pg. ID 11.) Plaintiffs own two major assets: a 2001 Ford Focus
with a value of approximately $1000 and a home with a market value of $65,000.
(Id. at 2, Pg. ID 12.) Plaintiffs face total monthly expenses of $614.59. (Id.) The
Court has reviewed the Application and is satisfied that the prepayment of the filing
fee would cause an undue financial hardship on Plaintiffs. The Court therefore
grants the Application and permits them to file their 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 granted,
and/or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must liberally construe documents
filed by a pro se plaintiff. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and concludes that it needs more
information to properly evaluate Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiffs to submit a more definite statement of their
3 

claims and the allegations in support of their claims. In the more definite statement
Plaintiffs shall:
(1) State whether they are bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the
deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution;
(2) State the specific constitutional rights that they were deprived of by
Defendants’ actions or inaction. Specifically, Plaintiffs shall identify whether
they were deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed by the Due
Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. If so, Plaintiffs shall state the specific
property or liberty interest that they were allegedly deprived.
(3) Describe in detail how Defendants’ actions deprived Plaintiffs of their liberty
or property interests.
(4) State whether they are suing Defendants Horvath and Smith in their individual
capacities.
Plaintiffs shall label their response to this order “Plaintiff’s More Definite
Statement” and submit their response by January 16, 2017. The Clerk will not issue
summons until Plaintiffs’ supplemental response is evaluated by the Court. Failure
to comply as directed may result in the dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Dated: November 30, 2016
4 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 30, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5