Rogers v. State of Michigan Circuit Court

Filing 4

ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed in forma pauperis; and DISMISSING COMPLAINT, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMUEL ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-10136
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
STATE OF MICHIGAN
CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendant.
__________________________/
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Appearing pro se, Plaintiff Samuel Rogers filed a complaint on January 19,
2015, and an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. 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). In

addition, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff complains that he has been ordered to provide child support for a
child that is not his. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over domestic
matters such as child support. “The Supreme Court has held that federal courts
lack jurisdiction over questions of divorce, alimony, or child custody.” See Adkins
v. Adkins, 2015 WL 6736187, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2015) (citing
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703-07 (1992)). Moreover, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review a state court order or judgment. See Rowe v. City of
Detroit, 234 F.3d 1269, 2000 WL 1679474 (6th Cir. 2000) (“The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine provides that federal district courts generally lack jurisdiction to review
and determine the validity of state court judgments, even in the face of allegations
that ‘the state court’s action was unconstitutional.’”).
Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not reveal a basis for federal subject
matter jurisdiction, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that his complaint is DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: February 1, 2016
-2-

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties of record on this date, February 1, 2016, using the ECF system and/or
ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-