Amponsah v. Randall
ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (2) Summarily Dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint Without Prejudice, and (3) Denying Plaintiff's 3 Request for Service by United States Marshal. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 17-cv-13531
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF #2), (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND (3) DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL
On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff Mabel Amponsah filed this civil action. (See
Complaint, ECF #1.) The Complaint asserts claims against “Officer Randall.” (See id.)
Amponsah also filed an application to proceed in in forma pauperis (the “Application”)
(see ECF #2), and she requested that the Court direct the United States Marshal to serve
the Summons and Complaint. (See ECF #3.) For the reasons stated below, the Court
GRANTS Amponsah’s Application, DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice, and
DENIES Amponsah’s request for service by the U.S. Marshal.
Amponsah claims that she filed a police report at some point with Officer Randall
at the Clinton Township Police Department. (See Compl., ECF #1 at Pg. ID 7.) Amponsah
said in the report that her employment had recently been terminated and that she still
possessed some of her former employer’s product. (See id.) Officer Randall told her that
she could “keep the product for [the] lawsuit [she apparently intended to file against the
former employer].” (Id.)
A week later, two different police officers from the Clinton Township Police
Department stopped Amponsah on the basis that she had stolen her former employer’s
product. (See id.) The two police officers confiscated the allegedly-stolen product. (See
id.) Following the incident, Amponsah discovered that the police report she had earlier
made to Officer Randall was not on file. (See id.)
The Clinton Township Police
Department later informed Amponsah that “they would drop the charges against [her] for
having the product back.” (Id.)
Amponsah has now filed this action against Officer Randall. She asserts claims
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. She also appears to assert state-law claims for “Outrageous Discrimination;
Gross Negligence; Outrageous Misconduct; Breached [sic] of Contract; and Mental
Anguish and Trauma.” (Id. at Pg. ID 8.) She seeks $3,000 in compensatory damages. (Id.)
As part of her requested relief, Amponsah also asks “[t]hat all Commercial Buildings
The facts recited below are from Amponsah’s Complaint. The Court treats them
as true for purposes of this Order.
including Businesses [sic] centers, Stores, Gas Stations, Restaurant [sic], all who do
business in the Community, must all have bathroom privileges for courtesy and prudent
service to the members of the community in which they serve . . . .” (Id.) Amponsah further
requests that “the Clinton Township Police should seek the Government approval again for
more Tee Pee privileges in each community in the Nation.” (Id.)
Applications to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs are governed by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That statute 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
. . . .” Id.
In the Application, Amponsah states that she is unemployed, has no money in any
bank accounts, and has no sources of income. (See Application, ECF #2 at Pg. ID 13-14.)
The Court has reviewed the Application and is satisfied that the prepayment of the filing
fee would cause an undue financial hardship on Amponsah. The Court therefore grants the
Application and permits Amponsah to file her Complaint without prepaying the filing fee.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint sua sponte if the Court determines that the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Although a pro-se litigant’s complaint (like the one Amponsah has filed here) is to
be construed liberally, see Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F. Supp. 391, 392 (E.D. Mich.
1994) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)), it must nonetheless be dismissed
if it fails to “plead facts sufficient to show a legal wrong has been committed from which
plaintiff may be granted relief.” Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F. Supp. 2d 796, 799 (E.D. Mich.
2001); see also Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989) (“Neither [the Supreme
Court] nor other courts  have been willing to abrogate basic pleading essentials in pro se
Amponsah’s claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact. Officer Randall’s alleged
failure to properly file Amponsah’s police report, without more, does not even arguably
amount to a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, Amponsah does not allege that Officer Randall
acted against her based upon any classification that would implicate either the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 or the Equal Protection Clause. Nor does Officer Randall’s alleged conduct
constitute a breach of contract or other state-law wrong alleged by Amponsah. And her
request for relief related to toilet paper and bathroom privileges underscores that her claims
lack any serious basis in law or fact.
This Court previously dismissed as frivolous another lawsuit by Amponsah in which
she sought relief against Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump
for failing to protect her well-being. See Amponsah v. Trump, et al., Civil Action No. 1711515 (E.D. Mich.), Order of Dismissal, ECF #5. The Court likewise dismisses this action
Because the Court dismisses the Complaint, it also denies Amponsah’s request for
service by the United States Marshal.
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application (ECF #2) is GRANTED.
2. The Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Amponsah’s request for service by U.S. Marshal (ECF #3) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 13, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on November 13, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
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?