Swagerty v Angel

Filing 4

ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs; and DISMISSING 1 Complaint filed by Lamont Swagerty. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAMONT SWAGERTY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-12976
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
ST. VINCENT DEPAUL, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Appearing pro se, Plaintiff Lamont Swagerty filed a complaint and
application to proceed without prepayment of fees on September 11, 2017. 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).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although this
standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it does require more than
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the
plaintiff must allege facts that, if accepted as true, are sufficient “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Id. at 570. See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009).
Failing to meet this standard, Plaintiff’s complaint contains only vague
allegations such as “discriminating against work conduct,” “discriminating against
purchasing store items,” and “inappropriate verbal actions.” Plaintiff has not
provided factual allegations indicating how he is entitled to relief under any legal
theory. Even viewing the complaint liberally in light of his pro se status, Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: October 17, 2017
-2-

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties of record on this date, October 17, 2017, using the ECF system and/or
ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-