Ruther v. Michigan State Attorney General

Filing 6

ORDER (1) Dismissing 3 Order to Show Cause, (2) Dismissing 4 Amended Complaint Without Prejudice, and (3) Denying 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as Moot. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
L. RUTHER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-10176
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) DISMISSING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF #3), (2)
DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF #4) WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, AND (3) DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF #2) AS MOOT
On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff L. Ruther filed a handwritten Complaint in this
Court against Defendant the State of Michigan. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Ruther also
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (See Application,
ECF #2.)
The Court attempted to review Ruther’s Complaint, but it could not decipher
his handwriting. Nor could it determine what Ruther’s alleged cause of action was
or how the Court had jurisdiction over his claim(s). Accordingly, on January 25,
2017, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause requiring Ruther to “file an
Amended Complaint that contain[ed] (1) a more definite statement of his claim(s)
against the State of Michigan and (2) sufficient factual allegations to establish this

1

Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” (ECF #3 at Pg. ID 6.) In addition, the Court
required to Ruther to submit his amended pleading “in a format that [was] legible to
the Court.” (Id. at Pg. ID 7.) Specifically, the Court ordered Ruther to
either (1) submit his Amended Complaint in a typed
format (either by use of computer, typewriter, or other
word processor) or (2) hand-write the Amended
Complaint on every other line of his paper (i.e., he must
leave a blank line in between the lines of text that he
writes). Any hand-written Amended Complaint shall also
use both uppercase and lowercase letters (i.e., it must not
use all capital letters) and no writing shall appear within
one inch of the top or bottom of each page.
(Id.) The Court warned Ruther that if he did not file an Amended Complaint that
complied with the Court’s requirements, it would dismiss his action without
prejudice. (See id.)
Ruther filed an Amended Complaint on February 6, 2017. (See ECF #4.) His
Amended Complaint does not comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause and is
nearly indecipherable. The Amended Complaint does not appear to contain a more
definite statement of his claim, does not appear to contain sufficient allegations to
establish this Court’s jurisdiction, and is neither typed nor hand-written on every
other line of paper with the use of upper and lower case letters, which makes it nearly
impossible to read.

2

Therefore, because Ruther has failed to comply with the Court’s Order to
Show Cause, and because he has failed to establish that the Court has jurisdiction
over his claim(s), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
 The Court’s January 25, 2017, Order to Show Cause (ECF #3) is
DISMISSED;
 Ruther’s Amended Complaint (ECF #4) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and
 Ruther’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF #2) is
DENIED AS MOOT.

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

Dated: May 3, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on May 3, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3