Amponsah v. Bar Association of USA et al

Filing 5


Download PDF
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

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?