Brown v. Wayne County Circuit Court et al

Filing 5

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 2 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S 1 COMPLAINT - Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL BROWN, JR.
Plaintiff,
v.
WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT et al.,

Case No. 24-cv-13392
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (Dkt. 2) AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Daniel Brown, Jr. filed a complaint against Defendants Wayne County Circuit
Court, the Honorable Cynthia Diane Stephens, and an unnamed court staff member (Dkt. 1).
Brown also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2). The Court has reviewed
Brown’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and finds him to be indigent. The Court,
therefore, grants the application.
Because Brown proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court must screen his complaint to “see if
it fails to state a claim or is frivolous.” Barnes v. United States Postal Serv., No. 23-cv-11686,
2023 WL 4765571, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2023) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Brown
states that he was a defendant in a Wayne County Circuit Court case presided over by the
Honorable Cynthia Diane Stephens. Compl. at PageID.2. He contends that the court failed to
provide him with trial transcripts that he requested. Id. He alleges violations of due process, equal
protection, and state law related to the denial of such transcripts. Id.
The Court finds that it is “unable to discern a viable federal claim on the face of the
complaint.” See Barnes, 2023 WL 4765571, at *1 (summarily dismissing complaint filed in forma

pauperis). The denial of court transcripts is a matter that is fully remedied within the Michigan
court system. In addition, the Defendants in this action have immunity. The court has immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment as an extension of the state. See Morgan v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. of
the Supreme Ct. of Tenn., 63 F.4th 510, 515 (6th Cir. 2023) (explaining that Eleventh Amendment
immunity “extends to departments and agencies that are arms of the state”). The judge has
immunity a judicial officer. See Brookings v. Clunk, 389 F.3d 614, 617 (6th Cir. 2004) (“It is
well-established that judges enjoy judicial immunity from suits arising out of the performance of
their judicial functions.”). And the court staff member has immunity as an extension of both the
court and the judge.
For these reasons, the Court dismisses Brown’s action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2025
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

2