Sheffey v. O'Reilly Rancilio P.C. et al

Filing 5

ORDER Granting 4 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees, Summarily Dismissing and Closing Action and Finding Allegations Frivolous filed by Vincent M. Sheffey. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VINCENT M. SHEFFEY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 17-103741
v.
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
O’REILLY RANCILIO, P.C.,
CITY OF DETROIT, STATE OF
MICHIGAN and ERIC SABREE,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES,
SUMMARILY DISMISSING AND CLOSING ACTION,
AND
FINDING ALLEGATIONS FRIVOLOUS
Before the Court is Vincent M. Sheffey’s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. A review of the application supports his claim of pauper status. The Court
grants in forma pauperis status to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this
action. However, for the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the action as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
1

Plaintiff refers to a previously-filed case before former District Judge
Gerald E. Rosen (retired from the Bench effective January 31, 2017). The previous
matter was a student loan recovery action filed by the United States against the
plaintiff in the instant case, Vincent Sheffey. A Default Judgment was entered
against Sheffey on May 19, 2014 in the amount of $36,307.48. (Case No. 1410237, Doc. No. 7)

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court may
dismiss a complaint before service on a defendant if it is satisfied that the action is
frivolous, malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants who is/are immune from
such relief. A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous “where it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, the Sixth Circuit clarified the procedures a district court
must follow when faced with a civil action filed by a non-prisoner proceeding in
forma pauperis:
Unlike prisoner cases, complaints by non-prisoners are not
subject to the screening process required by § 1915A.
However, the district court must still screen the complaint
under § 1915(e)(2) ... Section 1915(e)(2) provides us with
the ability to screen these, as well as prisoner cases that
satisfy the requirements of this section. The screening must
occur even before process is served or the individual has
had an opportunity to amend the complaint. The complaint
must be dismissed if it falls within the requirements of §
1915(e)(2) when filed.
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997)(overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)); Smith v. Bernanke, 283 F. App’x
356, 357 (6th Cir. Jun. 26, 2008). Federal courts hold the pro se complaint to a “less
stringent standard” than those drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972). However, pro se litigants are not excused from failing to follow basic
2

procedural requirements. Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Brock
v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff filed a 22-page document entitled, “Complaint and Status” on February
1, 2017. (Doc. No. 1) Plaintiff asserts he has never been part of “this corporate state
or their judicial system.” Id. Plaintiff seeks compensation in the amount of
$150,000.00. Id. Plaintiff attached documents referring to the “Lufkin County” case
and a document entitled, “Fraud! Fraud! Fraud!” Id. The named-Defendants in the
case caption are O’Reilly Rancilio P.C., City of Detroit, State of Michigan and Wayne
County Treasurer-Eric Sabree. There are no factual allegations against the namedDefendants in the substance of the “Complaint and Status.”
After reviewing the “Complaint and Status” and the other documents filed by
Plaintiff, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to follow the rules of pleading set forth in
Rule 8(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure which requires “a short and plain statement
of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Even

liberally construing the documents submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff
failed to allege any factual grounds showing that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from
the named-Defendants. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court finds Plaintiff’s submissions frivolous.
3

For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Vincent M. Sheffey’s Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice and
this action is designated as CLOSED on the docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Any Appeal of this Order would be frivolous and would not be taken
in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962), McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: February 28, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on February 28, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4