Moore v. Trump
ORDER Granting Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees re 2 , Denying Request for Service 3 , Summarily Dismissing and Closing Action 1 and Finding Allegations Frivolous. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ERIC D. MOORE,
Civil Action No. 17-117931
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
DONALD J. TRUMP,
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES,
DENYING REQUEST FOR SERVICE,
SUMMARILY DISMISSING AND CLOSING ACTION,
FINDING ALLEGATIONS FRIVOLOUS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Eric D. Moore’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs. A review of the application supports his claim of pauper
A review of the court’s docket shows the following matters previously filed
by a plaintiff named Eric D. Moore: 1) Moore v. Detroit Edison, Case No. 95-fp76178 (O’Meara) (Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was denied); 2)
Moore v. City of Detroit, Case No. 04-70637 (O’Meara) (Case dismissed for
failure to timely serve the summons and complaint); 3) Moore v. Obama, Case No.
16-11635 (Rosen) (Case dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim);
and, 4) Moore v. Trump, Case No. 16-14091 (Friedman) (Case dismissed as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim).
status. The Court grants Plaintiff 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.
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
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
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’s Complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§
1986 & 1985. (Doc. No. 1, Pg ID 4) He seeks $100 billion in installment. Id. at Pg
Plaintiff cites the Fourth Amendment “Privacy” and First Amendment
“Religion” of the U.S. Constitution. Id. at Pg ID 8. Plaintiff also cites federal
statutes: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1986, 1985 conspiracy-RICO larceny and 18 U.S.C. § 1512,
Fair Treatment of Crime Victims and Witnesses. Id. Plaintiff alleges retaliation
against witness, victim or informant and penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Id. Plaintiff
further alleges threat against life and six intellectual property rights as to patents
USPTO Patent No. US 62/496,599 Cancer DNA Code Breaker Algorythm Research
and 1 PR’s under strict-construction/method of madness/lab testing (1988-2017). Id.
The named-Defendant is President Donald J. Trump. There are no factual allegations
against the Defendant.
After reviewing the Complaint 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 Complaint filed by
Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to allege any factual grounds showing
that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from the named-Defendant. Plaintiff fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court
finds the allegations and statements in Plaintiff’s Complaint frivolous.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Eric D. Moore’s Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Service by the United States
Marshal (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED as MOOT.
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: July 31, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on July 31, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?