Simmons v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 6

ORDER: (1) Granting Plaintiff's Motion 2 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; (2) Summarily Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint 1 ; and (3) Enjoining Plaintiff from Filing Further Complaints Without First Seeking and Obtaining Leave of Court. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

Case 2:20-cv-11650-VAR-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 07/07/20

PageID.123

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LATAUSHA SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 20-11650
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

v.

DETROIT, CITY OF; NORMAN
WHITE, former Director of City of
Detroit Parking Violations Bureau; and
JAMES CANTY, Manager of City
of Detroit Parking Violations Bureau
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS [ECF No. 2]
(2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT [ECF No. 1];
AND
(3) ENJOINING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING FURTHER COMPLAINTS
WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING AND OBTAINING LEAVE OF COURT
I.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2020, Latausha Simmons (“Simmons”) filed a pro se complaint
against the City of Detroit, James Canty, and Norman White (collectively,
“Defendants”). She alleges Defendants placed a “stop action” on her driver’s
license after she failed to pay parking citations and violations. She says the
Michigan Secretary of State would not renew her license because of this.
1

Case 2:20-cv-11650-VAR-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 07/07/20

PageID.124

Page 2 of 6

Simmons alleges 6 federal claims relating to deprivation of rights under
§1983 and Monell (Count I, Count II, Count IV, Count V, Count VI, Count VII)
and 4 state claims relating to assault and battery, violations of the Michigan
vehicle code, negligence, and emotional distress (Count III, Count VIII,
Count IX, Count X).
II.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and filed an “Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis.” Nonetheless, the Court allows it.
In 1982, Congress enacted an in forma pauperis statute “to ensure that
indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, (1989) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont deNemours
& Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342-43 (1948)). Proceeding in forma pauperis is a
privilege, not a right. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th
Cir.1998); Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991).
Courts must construe pro se pleadings liberally. Boag v. MacDougall, 454
U.S. 364. 365 (1982); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519. 520 (1972). However,
a court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that it determines to be
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
2

Case 2:20-cv-11650-VAR-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 07/07/20

PageID.125

Page 3 of 6

A pro se complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468. 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007) governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)). Additionally, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and
have a duty to police the boundaries of their own jurisdiction. Answers in
Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Intern., Ltd., 556 F.3d 459,
465 (6th Cir. 2009).
1. Simmons’ Federal Claims
The Court has federal question jurisdiction over Count I, Count II, Count
IV, Count V, Count VI, and Count VII because the claims arise under federal
law.
On February 19, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Simmons’ 42 U.S.C. 1983 (“§1983”) Monell claims. See Simmons v. Detroit,
City of et. al (18-13812) [ECF No. 35]. Simmons alleges the same
wrongdoing here that the Court previously considered and dismissed. Count
I, Count II, Count IV, Count V, Count VI, and Count VII against City of Detroit,
James Canty, and Norman White are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. Simmons’ State Claims
3

Case 2:20-cv-11650-VAR-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 07/07/20

PageID.126

Page 4 of 6

Because Simmons and Defendants are not diverse, the Court only has
supplemental jurisdiction of her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law
claims if:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or
claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
A district court is within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a state claim if all federal claims have been properly
dismissed. See Valot v. Southeast Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 107 F.3d
1220, 1230 (6th Cir.1997). “[G]enerally, if the federal claims are dismissed
before trial ... the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine
Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

4

Case 2:20-cv-11650-VAR-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 07/07/20

PageID.127

Page 5 of 6

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Simmons’ state claims. Count III, Count VIII, Count IX, and Count X are
dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Count I, Count II, Count IV, Count V, Count VI,
and Count VII against City of Detroit, James Canty, and Norman White are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Count III, Count VIII, Count IX, and Count
X are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Further, the Court IMPOSES a permanent injunction requiring Simmons
to seek leave of court before filing any further complaints. This restriction is
warranted because Simmons has brought numerous suits related to the
denial of her license renewal resulting from parking violations. These claims
relate to the same occurrence and allege similar claims against various
Defendants. Simmons’ “repetitive or vexatious litigation” is a valid basis for
imposing pre-filing restrictions because the merits of his claim have been
summarily dismissed more than once. Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 141
F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998)(“[W]e see nothing wrong . . . with an order that
restrains not only an individual litigant from repeatedly filing an identical
complaint, but that places limits on a reasonably defined category of litigation

5

Case 2:20-cv-11650-VAR-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 07/07/20

PageID.128

Page 6 of 6

because of a recognized pattern of repetitive, frivolous, or vexatious cases
within that category.”).
Simmons is enjoined and restrained from filing in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan any new lawsuit against any party
relating in any way to her parking violations, without first making a written
request for and receiving a court order.
The Clerk’s Office must impose the pre-filing restrictions on Simmons
consistent with the Court’s Order [ECF 6].

IT IS ORDERED.
s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: July 7, 2020

6