Bartlett v. Ducey et al

Filing 5

OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING 1 Motion for Injunction and Denying the 2 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (NAhm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________
ALAN M. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-14133
v.
DOUGLAS A. DUCEY, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AND DENYING
THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Alan M. Bartlett’s motion for “Injunction Against
Mail Fraud and Invoice Collection Scheme Harassment.” (Dkt. #1.) The motion requests
an injunction against various Defendants who—along with Plaintiff—allegedly reside in
Arizona; Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from engaging in “any unsolicited contact
by telephone, mail, third-party, and/or by and through it’s [sic] agents to circumvent any
further unlawful mail fraud collection invoice schemes.” (Dkt. #1 Pg. ID 6–7.) Plaintiff
has also filed an application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (Dkt. #2.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[a] civil action is commenced
by filing a complaint with the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Before a complaint is filed, no
action has “commenced,” and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief.
See, e.g., Gardner v. McQueen, No. 16-13790, 2017 WL 131553, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan.
13, 2017) (Roberts, J.).
Plaintiff has not filed a complaint. Instead he has filed a motion for injunctive
relief. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits parties to seek injunctive relief

1

on existing claims or causes of action, it does not provide an independent basis for
federal court jurisdiction. The court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction over this matter, and it
must be dismissed.
Because the court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it
does not reach the question of whether Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee. The court also concludes that an appeal from this order
cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunction (Dkt. #1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee (Dkt. #2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is closed and will not
be reopened.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 4, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, January 4, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]
S:\Cleland\KNP\Civil\17-14133.BARTLETT.dismiss.injunction.ifp.KNP.docx

2