Brooks v. Glynn

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSINGPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), GRANTING Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and DENYING Application for Appointment of Counsel as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PATRICIA BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIV. NO. 13-11359
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

EDMOUND GLYNN,

HON. MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.
______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Plaintiff Patricia Brooks, proceeding pro se, filed the instant lawsuit along
with an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an application for
appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has filed several lawsuits in this District over the
years – including two filed on the same date as the present matter.1
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and her application for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS
MOOT.

1 On the same day this case was filed, Plaintiff filed two additional cases: Civil Case No.
13-11358 (assigned to the Honorable Marianne Battani) and Civil Case No. 13-11357
(assigned to the Honorable Patrick Duggan). Judges Duggan and Battani have already
dismissed these cases as frivolous. Plaintiff also filed previous lawsuits in this District,
which have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or because the claims
alleged therein were frivolous: Civil Case Nos. 11-13229 (Rosen, C.J.); 11-13217 (Cox, J.);
and 10-10872 (Hood, J.).

A. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or without the
prepayment of fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), “any court of the United
States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action
or proceeding ... without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who
submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets … [and] that the person
is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). If an
application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed along with a facially sufficient
affidavit, the court should permit the complaint to be filed. See Gibson v. R.G.
Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir.1990). Once the complaint has been filed, it is
then tested to determine whether it is frivolous or if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. See Gibson, 915 F.2d at 261. The Court finds Plaintiff's
financial affidavit to be facially sufficient; therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
B. Dismissal Under § 1915(e)(2)
The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress, in enacting the federal in
forma pauperis statute, “intended to guarantee that no citizen shall be denied an
opportunity to commence, prosecute, or defend an action, civil or criminal, in any
court of the United States, solely because ... poverty makes it impossible ... to pay or
secure the costs of litigation.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 112 S.Ct. 1728,
118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S.
331, 342, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948)). At the same time, however, “Congress
2 

recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the
public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing
frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’” Denton, 504 U.S. at 31 (quoting
Neitzke v. Wiliams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)).
Responding to this concern, Congress provided § 1915(e)(2), which establishes that
a court “shall dismiss the case” if the court finds that:
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal —
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
When a plaintiff proceeds without the assistance of counsel, a court is required to
liberally construe documents and hold them to a less stringent standard than a
similar pleadings drafted by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520,
92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Nevertheless, a complaint must contain more
than legal labels, conclusions, and a recitation of the elements of a cause of action.
See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d
929 (2007). Rather, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.

3 

Plaintiff’s handwritten Complaint is mostly incomprehensible. From what
the Court can discern, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Edmound Glynn broke into a
storage unit and stole $40,000 worth of property. Plaintiff also appears to claim
that a “Terrance Brooks” was drugged and that “people are being held and raped.”
The Complaint further contains statements that Defendant Glynn was “raping
Schrice William” and that unidentified people were bringing “snakes” into hotel
rooms.
Even with most liberal reading of Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court finds this
action to be frivolous in that the allegations are wholly incredible. See Denton, 504
U.S. at 33 (noting that a court may dismiss a claim if the facts are “clearly
baseless,” “fantastic,” and “delusional”). Furthermore, it is evident from Plaintiff’s
Complaint that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. A court may sua
sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410, 412 (6th Cir. 1999).
On the cover sheet submitted with her Complaint, Plaintiff checked the box
indicating that the basis of jurisdiction is “diversity” (Dkt. 1).2 The facts showing
the existence of jurisdiction, however, must be affirmatively alleged in Plaintiff’s
Complaint. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.
Ct. 780, 785 (1936); Cincinnati Sch. Dist. v. Bd. of Educ., No. 04-4258, 2005 WL
6781829, at *3 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Bd. of Trustees of

2 Plaintiff also checked boxes for “U.S. Government Plaintiff” and “U.S. Government
Defendant.” However, there is no allegation that either Plaintiff or Defendant are in any
way related to the Federal Government.
4 

Painesville Twp. v. City of Painseville, 200 F.3d 396, 398 (6th Cir. 1999); Musson
Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1248 (6th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff’s
Complaint is devoid of such facts.
Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between - (1) citizens
of different states . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). While it appears from Plaintiff’s
Complaint that she lives in Missouri – and presumably is a citizen of that state –
the citizenship of Defendant Glynn is not stated or suggested.3 Moreover, the facts
alleged do not suggest that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Nor do the
facts suggest that Plaintiff is asserting claims arising under federal law. See 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (providing that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); and Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS
MOOT.
SO ORDERED.

3 Plaintiff’s Complaint implies that Mr. Glynn may have resided at 897 Redwood, Norcross,
GA on October 10, 2010 – but this allegation is not sufficient to establish Mr. Glynn’s
citizenship on the date the Complaint was filed, March 27, 2013.
5 

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated:

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on April 10,
2013 using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

Copy mailed to:
Patricia Brooks
3107 Elmwood
Kansas City, MO 64128

6