Amponsah v. Bar Association of USA et al

Filing 5

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MABEL AMPONSAH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-13709
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

BAR ASSOCIATION OF USA, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS [Doc. 2] AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT [Doc. 1]
On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff Mabel Amponsah filed a pro se civil rights
complaint against the “Bar Association of USA” and three attorneys, Cameron A. Evans,
Peter W. Peacock and James A. McGrail. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis.
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, her
complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may
be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court has an obligation to
screen the complaint and dismiss the case if it: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989).
Although the Court construes a pro se plaintiff’s complaint liberally, Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), that “leniency . . . is not boundless,” and “basic

pleading standards” still must be satisfied. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th
Cir. 2004). Specifically, a pro se plaintiff’s complaint still “must plead facts sufficient to
show a legal wrong has been committed from which plaintiff may be granted relief.”
Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F. Supp. 2d 796, 799 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Plaintiff appears to be suing attorneys who represented opposing parties in a
previous case Plaintiff filed. She alleges that the attorneys moved to dismiss that case
with “no concern [for] the one whom their client has violated and caused severe
damages . . . .” [Doc. 1, PgID 8]. Among other things, Plaintiff seeks: (1) compensatory
damages of $4.9 billion, of which $1.4 billion goes to her and the remaining amount
goes to “the funding of Chaplaincy Service for Spiritual Revival and Restoration of
Americans’ Christian Faith and Values of the Fathers which is the Ultimate for all
Mankind”; (2) “Spiritual Training for Law School Students, Bible as a Subject must be
added to the curricula of law school . . .”; and (3) that the defendant-attorneys be
suspended for five to seven years.
Construing the complaint liberally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims lack an
arguable basis in fact and/or law, and must be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Moreover, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal of this order would be frivolous
and would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge

Dated: November 21, 2017
2