Steen v. Rostram
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Denying Without Prejudice 3 Application for Appointment of Counsel and Requiring Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint, (Amended Complaint due by 11/29/2012). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KATHERINE STEEN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
12-CV-15016
vs.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
ALLEN ROSTRAM,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL, AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
This matter is presently before the Court on (i) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. 2), (ii) Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 3), and (iii) the
Court’s own review of the complaint. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s application for
appointment of counsel, and require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within ten days of
today’s date.
Applications to proceed in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), which
provides that a federal court “may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action, or
proceeding . . . by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets . . .
that the person is unable to pay such fees . . . .” The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application,
which states that Plaintiff received a total of $668.00 in the last year, that she has a total of
$150.00 in bank accounts, and that she has children and grandchildren dependent on her for
support. Application at 1-2 (CMECF pagination) (Dkt. 2). The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is
indigent and that prepayment of the filing fee would cause an undue financial hardship. The
Court grants Plaintiff’s application and permits Plaintiff to file her complaint without prepaying
the filing fee.
The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 3).
A district court has discretion to decide whether to appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant.
Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993). Appointment of counsel in a civil case
“is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 606 (citations omitted).
In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court considers the “complexity of the
factual and legal issues involved” and the plaintiff’s ability to represent herself. Id. (citation and
quotation marks omitted). The Court is unable to conclude from Plaintiff’s complaint whether
exceptional circumstances exist that would warrant the appointment of counsel. For this reason,
the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel.
The Court is also required to screen all complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding in forma
pauperis and dismiss those that (i) are frivolous or malicious, (ii) fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, and/or (iii) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The complaint in this case is only partially legible. Plaintiff states that she is “filing civil
tort for nine million dollars, against owner Allen Rostram of Eastpointe Apartments.” Compl. at
1 (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff states that the cause of action is “wrongfully eviction,” “stolen property,”
“criminal activity of residents and employers, which means Allen Rostram is Guilty and Liable.”
Id. The complaint continues, “Plaintiff is demanding that Federal District Court Sanction all
Federal subsidies that Allen Rostram receive for Housing . . . .” In a State of Michigan
Department of Civil Rights Complaint attached to the instant complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she
was evicted from her apartment based on discrimination due to her race, sex, and age. Compl. at
p. 9 of 36 (CMECF pagination) (Dkt. 1). Finally, on Plaintiff’s cover sheet, she states that the
cause of action is 18 U.S.C. § 1111 and “several violations of civil & human rights.” Compl. at
20 (CMECF pagination). That section of the United States Code defines “murder.”
To state a claim, a complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 512
(2002) (citation and quotations marks omitted). Based on the complaint, the Court is unable to
discern Plaintiff’s claim for relief or the grounds upon which it is based. To the extent Plaintiff
claims that Defendant is “guilty” of “criminal activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 1111, Plaintiff fails to
state a claim, because there is no private right of action to enforce provisions of criminal law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 547 (stating that the United States attorney shall “prosecute for all offenses
against the United States”).
It is also not clear from the complaint what happened and to whom. Although Plaintiff
attaches a document indicating that she filed a complaint of housing discrimination under
Michigan law, Plaintiff does not clarify whether she is bringing a discrimination claim under
federal law. Furthermore, the instant complaint does not establish an arguable basis for the ninemillion-dollar damage award sought. For these reasons, and because several of the documents
submitted by Plaintiff are illegible, the Court concludes that the complaint does not give
Defendant a fair notice of Plaintiff’s claim or the grounds on which it rests.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is granted, and
Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 3) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff
shall submit, within ten days of today’s date, an amended complaint that legibly and
comprehensibly states Plaintiff’s claim and the grounds on which it rests. Plaintiff’s amended
complaint shall also state the basis for federal jurisdiction in this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)
(“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing the
pleader is entitled to relief”). If Plaintiff does not timely submit an amended complaint curing
the above-described defects, the Court will dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and/or
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2012
Flint, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 19, 2012.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?