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)

Download PDF
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 (313) 234-5113 3

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?