Adams v. Trump

Filing 5

ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees, Denying 3 Request for Service, Summarily Dismissing and Closing Action and Finding Allegations Frivolous. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JEROME S. ADAMS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 17-11925 v. HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES, DENYING REQUEST FOR SERVICE, SUMMARILY DISMISSING AND CLOSING ACTION, AND FINDING ALLEGATIONS FRIVOLOUS Before the Court is Plaintiff Jerome S. Adam’s Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. A review of the application supports his claim of pauper 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 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 procedural requirements. Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1988). 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1, Pg ID 3) He claims $500,000,000,000 as the amount in controversy. Id. at Pg ID 5. Plaintiff asserts that from May to November 2016, Defendant “has taken my law suit money. I have been denied by 36 district court for numburs (sic) of reasons.” Id. Plaintiff further asserts that he is entitled to money “because it was awarded to me by the court. The movie that was done about my life, I never got paid for.” Id. The relief Plaintiff requests is to have “all my money that President Donald Trump has taken from me in my law suits.” Id. at Pg ID 6. 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 Defendant. Other than alleging Defendant took his money from his law suits, there are no factual allegations describing what the underlying law suits were about, the amount awarded to Plaintiff in those law suits, and how Defendant took the money from those law suits. Plaintiff also failed to allege any legal authority as to why Plaintiff may recover from 3 Defendant any money awarded to Plaintiff from the law suits, if any. The Court finds Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6). The Court further finds the allegations and statements in Plaintiff’s Complaint are frivolous. For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Jerome S. Adams’ 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: June 30, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on June 30, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 4 S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry Case Manager 5

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?