Hines

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING the Notice of Removal and Lawful Order [#1] and the Notice of Removal and Intent to Execute. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________

In re DERRICK HINES,
d/b/a THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
THE UNITED STATES, a Federal Municipal
Corporation; THE STATE OF MICHIGAN;
Region 6, a Political Subdivision of Michigan;
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Case No. 18-50915

_______________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Derrick Hines, proceeding pro se, has filed a document styled as a “Government
Notice of Removal and Lawful Order.” (Dkt. #1.) He has also filed a “Government Notice
of Removal Intent to Execute.” (Dkt. #2.) For the following reasons, this case will be
dismissed.
The filed documents are in large part nonsensical. From the case caption he has
created, Derrick Hines seems to represent that he is bringing suit on behalf of the state
and federal government. He addresses his documents to some unidentified third parties
and demands money that he apparently gave to them. (See, e.g., Dkt. #1 (“You have 5
days to return funds that you are obligated to and that is due the Government through
the State.”).) He uses legal terminology in support of his apparent power to order the
return of his money. (See, e.g., Dkt. #1 (“I have personal and subject matter dominion,
power and authority over CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION and any
subsidiaries assigned and affiliates. I got a blank check and a blanket contract and I can
write in anything I want.”).) But if there is some legal basis on which Mr. Hines might

1

proceed in this manner, he has not identified it and the court is unaware of any. The
court is mindful of its obligation to liberally construe complaints by pro se litigants. See
Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). But it is not required furnish
additional factual allegations or legal bases where none presently exist—to do so would
improperly transform the court into an advocate for the plaintiff. Thompson v. A.J. Rose
Mfg. Co., No. 99-3728, 2000 WL 302998, at *1 (6th Cir. 2000).
At least one other Judge in this District has dismissed a similar case filed by Mr.
Hines as frivolous. See In re Derrick Hines, 18-50562, Dkt. #3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 26,
2018) (Cohn, J.). The court likewise finds that these filings are frivolous and this case is
appropriately dismissed. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the “Notice of Removal and Lawful Order” (Dkt. #1) is
DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Notice of Removal and Intent to Execute” is
DISMISSED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 9, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, August 9, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]
Z:\Cleland\KNP\Civil\18-50915.HINES.Dismiss.KNP.docx

2