Simpson II v. Navy Federal Credit Union

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Matthew Aaron Simpson II,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 23-12128
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

Navy Federal Credit Union,
Mag. Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT [1]
Before the Court is Matthew Aaron Simpson II’s pro se complaint.
(ECF No. 1.) Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 5), the Court must screen his complaint to see
if it fails to state a claim or is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.
I.

Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges that “[c]ommerce” is at issue in this case. (ECF No.
1, PageID.4.) He asserts that he “was denied credit which is a[n] adverse
action” but does not provide any facts. (Id., PageID.5.)

Plaintiff requests $10,000 in damages and that the Court “open
[his] credit card $25,000 credit limit.” (Id., PageID.6.)
II.

Analysis

Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5), so the Court must
screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to §
1915(e)(2), dismissal is proper if the action “is frivolous or malicious,”
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court will construe his pleadings
liberally. “Pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of
their pleadings and filings.” Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir.
1999); see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed . . . and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)).
Nonetheless, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a
complaint set forth “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the

2

claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a
demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of this
rule is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While
this notice pleading standard does not require “detailed” factual
allegations, it does require more than the bare assertion of legal
principles or conclusions. Id. Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned,
the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Despite this liberal pleading standard, this complaint is subject to
dismissal for two reasons. First, Plaintiff’s bare allegations in the
complaint are insufficient to show that subject matter jurisdiction exists.

3

Second, his complaint does not include a statement of the claim showing
that he is entitled to relief.
Plaintiff does not specify the basis for jurisdiction. He asserts that
the Court has federal question jurisdiction but does not state any federal
statute at issue in this case. (See ECF No. 1, PageID.3–4). In answer to
“[i]f the Basis for Jurisdiction Is a Federal Question[,] List the specific
federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States
Constitution that are at issue in this case,” Plaintiff writes, “[c]ommerce.”
(Id.) Because he does not provide a short and plain statement of the
grounds for jurisdiction, it is not clear if his claims arise under federal
law or implicate significant federal issues. The Court does not have
enough information to establish federal question jurisdiction over his
suit.
Plaintiff’s complaint also does not conform with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requiring “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiff does not
allege Defendant violated any law or right. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) He
does not provide any facts beyond “I was denied credit which is a[n]
adverse action.” (Id., PageID.5.) Plaintiff’s complaint does not include

4

any comprehensible facts about what happened to him, how he was
harmed, or what Defendant did or did not do. Without these key
allegations, Plaintiff does not give Defendant fair notice of his claim.
Based on the bare allegations in the complaint, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and
fails to state a cognizable claim.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court orders that the
Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b).
If Plaintiff elects to appeal this decision, he may not proceed
without prepayment of the fees and costs on appeal because an appeal
would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2025
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 6, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

6