Kurek v. United States Federal Justice, The

Filing 5

JUDGMENT DISMISSING suit due to lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb)

Kurek v. United States Federal Justice, The

Doc. 5

Case 1:06-cv-00384-RAE

Document 5

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________ MICHELLE RENE KUREK, Case No. 1:06-CV-384 Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL JUSTICE, JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Defendant. _____________________________/ Hon. Richard Alan Enslen

Plaintiff Michelle Rene Kurek proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis has filed a suit in this District against "United States Federal Justice." While "United States Federal Justice" is not a recognized legal entity, she does indicate in a parenthetical clause in her Complaint that she intends to sue the "Supreme Court" (Compl. ¶ 3), which presumably means the United States Supreme Court since many paragraphs of the Complaint refer to judicial interpretations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The basic premise of the Complaint, to the extent that it is coherent, is that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of First Amendment free expression as to the operation of adult businesses and such free expression has "created a sexually charged hostile environment within the community, and . . . in today's society . . . ." (Compl. ¶ 13.) The Complaint fails to specify any particular act of sexual harassment which has negatively affected Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks as relief a declaration that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is "unconstitutional" since it violates Title

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-00384-RAE

Document 5

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 2 of 2

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff also seeks damages and other injunctive relief under various state and federal statutes. (See Compl. ¶¶ 23-44.) The allegations of this Complaint are so lacking in factual detail and so patently frivolous that summary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is appropriate. See Apple v. Glen, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this suit is DISMISSED due to lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). /s/ Richard Alan Enslen RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: June 19, 2006

2