Hines

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE: DERRICK ANDREW HINES,
d/b/a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN, THE CITY OF ROYAL OAK,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Case No. 18-mc-50562
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOCIAL SECURITY
COMMISSIONER NANCY BERRYHILL
STATE OF MICHIGAN 44th DISTRICT COURT
ROYAL OAK POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ROYAL OAK
CITY OF REDFORD
ALL AMERICAN BOND AGENCY,

HON. AVERN COHN

INSOLENT DEBTORS/IMMIGRANTS(s) SUBJECTS,
_______________________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
I.
Derrick Andrew Hines, Thomas proceeding pro se, has filed a paper styled
“Government Notice of Removal Change of Venue.” The Clerk’s Office assigned the paper
a miscellaneous case number. For the reasons that follow, the case will be dismissed as
frivolous.
II.
“[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when
the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous,
devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, et al. 183 F.3d 477, 479
(6th Cir. 1999). When reviewing pro se papers, the court must employ standards less

stringent than if the complaint had been drafted by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519 (1972).
III.
The Court has read Hine’s paper. It is virtually unintelligible. As best as can be
gleaned, Hines seeks to step into the shoes of the state and federal government, including
the “Bureau of Consumer Financial Affairs” and “remove” “traffic and other alleged matters”
that are pending in the 44th District Court. Hines references federal statutes, such as the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, “immigration laws,” “bankruptcy laws,” and “criminal laws.”
First, to the extent plaintiff seeks to relitigate any events that have occurred in the
44th District Court, the complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under this
doctrine, lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state
court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 & n.16 (1983);
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). This is true even in the face of
allegations that “the state court’s action was unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486,
103 S. Ct. at 1317; see also Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 233-34 (6th Cir. 1996).
Overall, after reviewing Hines’ paper, the Court cannot discern a viable or plausible
claim or a basis for “removal” of any case to federal court. Accordingly, the case is
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: 4/26/2018
Detroit, Michigan

2