Williams v. Tsujihara et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by Terrence D. Williams and DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TERRENCE D. WILLIAMS,
Case No. 17-11217
Plaintiff,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
KEVIN TSUJIHARA, ET AL.,

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANTHONY P. PATTI

Defendants.
/

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [2];
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Terrence Williams filed a pro se Complaint [1] and an Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [2] on April 17, 2017. The Court may authorize the
commencement of a suit “without prepayment of fees or security therefore, by a
person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets . . .
[indicating] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th
Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds by LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944,
951 (6th Cir. 2013)). Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit showing sufficient indicia
of poverty. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis [2].

Page 1 of 4

Although the Court is obligated to read pro se complaints indulgently and
accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true unless they are clearly irrational or incredible,
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), the Court is also required to dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis “if the court determines that . . . the action . . .
is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit has explained:
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).....
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, 114 F.3d at 608.
An action must be dismissed as frivolous when “it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “Under §
1915(e), courts must dismiss a complaint when the factual contentions [on which it
relies] are clearly baseless.” Anson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 529 F. App’x 558, 559
(6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
Plaintiff appears to allege copyright violations and intellectual property theft
by the Defendants, individuals who work in the film and entertainment industry.
Plaintiff claims that he “should get $80,000,000 because WB’s [Warner Brothers’]
Page 2 of 4

plagerisms (sic) is far reaching practice with me starting with the theft of my little
novella series called the Teen Titans.” (Compl. at 5). Plaintiff claims that “Warner
Bros . . . [has] stolen as much as 80% of my story developments in one way or
another and they have not given me a dime in the payments or royalties that I
asked for.” Id. However, Plaintiff’s complaint is so devoid of context and detail
that the Court cannot discern what the Defendants allegedly did and why those
actions could plausibly result in liability.
In short, the complaint contains insufficient factual matter to enable the
Court to discern a plausible claim to relief, and therefore fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010). The
Court will therefore dismiss the case without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Plaintiff will have
the opportunity to file a new complaint with a more sufficient statement of his
claim(s).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis
[2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
Page 3 of 4

granted.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2017

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4