Nefertiti-El v. Powelson et al

Filing 4

ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs; and DISMISSING 1 Complaint filed by Nana Osundara Ajamu Nefertiti-El. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NANA OSUNDARA AJAMU
NEFERTITI EL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-13152
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
MARTIN POWELSON,
USA INVESTMENT LLC, and
JAMES A. ABBOTT,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Appearing pro se, Plaintiff Nana Osundara Ajamu Nefertiti El filed a
complaint and application to proceed without prepayment of fees on September 2,
2015. The court finds Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis to be
facially sufficient and, therefore, grants Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without
prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d
260, 262 (6th Cir. 1990).
Once a court grants a plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it
must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court “shall
dismiss” the case if the court finds that it is “(i) 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)(B).
Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth three causes of action: trespass to chattel,
conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although Plaintiff
alleges diversity jurisdiction, it is clear from the complaint that the parties are not
completely diverse, as Plaintiff and Defendants Martin Powelson and James
Abbott are alleged to reside in Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The requirements
for diversity jurisdiction are not met.
The requirements for federal question jurisdiction are also not met, because
Plaintiff has not alleged any federal causes of action. Although she mentions her
constitutional rights in passing, the complaint does not allege sufficient factual
matter to support such a claim. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (2010)
(“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”) (citation omitted). Therefore, the court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and it must be dismissed.
In addition, Plaintiff is attempting to stay an ongoing state eviction
proceeding. This court is obligated to abstain from interfering in state proceedings.
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “Younger established the principle
that in cases seeking to enjoin ongoing state proceedings – be they criminal, civil,
-2-

or administrative – federal courts should not exercise jurisdiction but should
instead dismiss the cases in their entirety.” Kish v. Michigan State Bd. of Law
Examiners, 999 F. Supp. 958, 965 (E.D. Mich. 1998). Plaintiff must seek relief in
state court.
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: September 9, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties of record on this date, September 9, 2015, using the ECF system and/or
ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-