Harris v. American Modern Insurance Group, Inc.

Filing 4

ORDER GRANTING 2 Application to Proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISSING Case without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY HARRIS,
Case No. 17-12205
Plaintiff,
v.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

AMERICAN MODERN INSURANCE
GROUP, INC.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P.
PATTI

Defendant.

/
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [2];
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Corey Harris filed a pro se Complaint [1] and an Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis [2] on July 5, 2017. The Court may authorize the
commencement of a suit “without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 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
Page 1 of 4

of poverty. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis [2].
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 it “fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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.
To determine whether Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, the Court must accept as true “well-pleaded facts” set forth in the
complaint. Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987).
Legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, but they must be
supported by sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

Page 2 of 4

its face. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant American Modern Insurance Group, Inc.
inaccurately reported information in Plaintiff’s credit report to Experian, Equifax
and Transunion, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681, et seq. Plaintiff asserts that he was denied “coverage” as a result of this
alleged false reporting. The Court accepts these factual allegations as true. Morgan,
829 F.2d at 12. However, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks necessary context and detail.
The Court cannot discern who denied coverage to Plaintiff, or what type of
coverage Plaintiff sought to justify the claim of $305,000 in damages. The type and
extent of the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant is also unclear.
In short, the complaint contains insufficient factual matter to enable the
Court to ascertain a plausible claim to relief, and therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Hill, 630 F.3d at 471. 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,
Page 3 of 4

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis
[2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2017

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

Page 4 of 4