Currie v. Andrews et al
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________
MARLON CURRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-14153
THOMAS ANDREWS, et al.,
Defendants,
/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Marlon Currie’s civil rights complaint filed under
42 U.S.C.§ 1983. (Dkt. # 1.) Because Plaintiff has paid the entire filing fee of $400, and
is not incarcerated, the court does not screen his complaint for frivolousness or
maliciousness pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).
The court does, however, have an initial and continuing obligation under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to review and dismiss cases in which the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. Because the court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are utterly
implausible, patently devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion, the court will sua
sponte dismiss the complaint.
A pro se litigant’s complaint is to be construed liberally, Middleton v. McGinnis,
860 F. Supp. 391, 392 (E.D. Mich.1994)(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)); that is, they are held to a “less stringent standard” than those drafted by
attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). And, as a general rule, a district
court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint where the filing fee has been paid unless
the court gives the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. Apple v. Glenn, 183
F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). However, “a district court may, at any time, sua sponte
dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally
implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to
discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d at 479 (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,
536-37 (1974). A complaint is “frivolous” if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 32 (1992). A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact if it is “premised on clearly
baseless factual allegations that describe fantastic or delusional scenarios, rising to the
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Selvy v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 371
F. Supp. 2d 905, 908 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2005) (Gadola, J.) (quoting Tenn. ex rel.
David Francis Fair v. Comm'r., 2004 WL 3079879 (E.D. Tenn. 2004)). A claim lacks an
arguable basis in law if it is not legally plausible and is “based on legal theories that are
indisputably meritless.” Id. (citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s complaint reasserts and expands upon allegations he made in an
earlier case in this court. See Currie v. Michigan, Case No. 10-13133, 2010 WL
3324869 (E.D. Mich. August 20, 2010) (Cleland, J.) In that earlier action, Plaintiff
alleged “violation, deprivation, and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of rights guaranteed
under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses” stemming from
his prosecution for domestic violence. (Id.) This court dismissed Plaintiff’s 2010
complaint as frivolous and failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Id.)
2
The instant complaint restates those claims and greatly expands them. Beyond
the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, Plaintiff now challenges the
constitutionality of approximately sixty state and federal statutes, alleging over three
hundred violations of rights secured by eighteen separate clauses spread across nine
constitutional amendments. (Dkt. # 1, Pg. ID 9.) These violations, says Plaintiff, were
the result of a conspiracy involving over six hundred named Defendants.
Specifically:
“approximately 95 Senators, 371 Congress Persons (sic), 35 members of
the Michigan Senate, 102 Michigan Legislators, 2 Attorney Generals (sic),
1 Judge, 1 Magistrate, 1 State Prosecutor, 1 Prosecuting attorney, 2
Defense Attorneys, 4 Police Officers, 1 School Police Officer, 1 Probation
officer, 1 DV Counselor, 1 Employer and 1 Chad Brewer.”
(Id.) In its order dismissing the 2010 case, this court observed that “Plaintiff’s complaint
is nearly unintelligible.” Currie, 2010 WL 3324869. Plaintiff has compounded that
unintelligibility with staggering volume.
The court declines to address each facet of Plaintiff’s nearly two hundred-page
complaint in detail. Plaintiff begins with what may be a fully comprehensive list of every
conceivable cause of action under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and
then alleges, in essence, a far flung conspiracy to violate those constitutional and
statutory standards carried out amongst hundreds of federal and state government
officials, counselors, and clergy who used legislation, criminal investigation and
prosecution, counseling, and “male-flaw brainwashing” to attempt to interfere with
Plaintiff’s efforts to discipline his wife and children as he deemed required by his
religious beliefs. It appears that the wellspring of this torrent of printed material may
have been domestic violence charges brought against Plaintiff in the recent past.
3
The factual and legal arguments are implausible and frivolous. The court is
satisfied that the allegations describe no more (or less) than “fantastic or delusional
scenarios, rising to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Selvy, 371 F.
Supp. 2d at 908 (denying leave to file complaint alleging massive Freemason
conspiracy targeting plaintiff). All of Plaintiff’s legal arguments able to be discerned by
the court are indisputably meritless; consider, for example, the inclusion as defendants
of more than five hundred legislators, all clearly protected from suit by absolute
immunity. See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49 (1998) (holding state legislators
absolutely immune from § 1983 liability stemming from “legislative activities”); Tenney v.
Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 375-76 (1951) (holding federal legislators similarly immune
under the Speech and Debate Clause, U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 6, cl. 1). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. # 1) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 9, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 9, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\16-14153.CURRIE.summary.dismissal.TLH2.wpd
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?