Rogers v. State of Michigan et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)

Case 2:22-cv-11996-LVP-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.37 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMUEL C. ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Case No. 22-11996
Honorable Linda V. Parker

STATE OF MICHIGAN EMPLOYEES
AND COURT OFFICIALS,
Defendants.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a serial filer who has brought a number of lawsuits against
various defendants in this District, including a 2021 action against “Officers of the
Court in the State of Michigan, Judges, and Court Personnel,” which was
summarily dismissed. 1 See Order Dismissing Complaint, Rogers v. Officers of the

Plaintiff’s previous lawsuits include: (i) Rogers v. Ricks, No. 20-cv-12100 (filed
July 27, 2020) (Judge Ludington); (ii) Rogers v. Friend of the Court, et al., No. 19cv-12954 (filed Oct. 18, 2019); (iii) Rogers v. State of Mich., No. 18-cv-11064
(filed Mar. 28, 2018) (Judge Drain); (iv) Rogers v. Battles, et al., No. 16-cv-13857
(filed Oct. 27, 2016) (Judge Goldsmith); (v) Rogers v. Mich. Attorney Gen., et al.,
No. 16-12509 (filed June 30, 2016) (Judge Lawson); (vi) Rogers v. State of Mich.,
et al., No. 16-cv-11155 (filed Mar. 25, 2016) (Judge Lawson); (vii) Rogers v.
Crawford, et al., No. 16-cv-10063 (filed Jan. 7, 2016) (Judge Lawson); (viii)
Rogers v. State of Mich. Circuit Ct., No. 16-cv-10136 (filed Jan. 13, 2016) (Judge
1

Case 2:22-cv-11996-LVP-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.38 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 3

Court in the State of Mich., et al., No. 21-12945 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2002), ECF
No. 4. Plaintiff is now attempting to sue unnamed state court employees and
officials based on some of the same allegations, such as the alleged illegal use of
his name and social security number, the mafia, organized crime, bribery, and child
support arrearages.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a claim for relief
includes: (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction”; (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief”; and (3) “a demand for relief sought.” A complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, that when accepted as true, “state[s] a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 570 (2007)). A claim is
facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to
reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Generally, a less stringent standard is applied when construing the
allegations pleaded in a pro se complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972). Nevertheless, pro se pleadings still must satisfy basic pleading

O’Meara); (ix) Rogers v. Mich. Judicial Tenure Comm’n, et al., No. 15-cv-14211
(filed Nov. 23, 2015) (Judge Lawson).

Case 2:22-cv-11996-LVP-EAS ECF No. 6, PageID.39 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 3

requirements. See Wright v. Penguin Random House, 783 F. App’x 578, 581 (6th
Cir. 2019) (citing Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8. Like Plaintiff’s assertions in the previous
lawsuits that he filed, the allegations in his pending Complaint are puzzling and the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this action is summarily dismissed as legally
frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2022

s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 16, 2022, by electronic
and/or U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager