Brooks v. Kemp et al
Filing
6
OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PATRICIA GLYNN BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:15-CV-735
BETTY KEMP, et al.,
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
Defendants.
/
OPINION
Plaintiff, Patricia Glynn Brooks, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint on an Eastern
District of Michigan form against numerous individuals. Brooks’s complaint is rambling, disjointed,
and, frankly, impossible to decipher. Under the “Statement of claim” portion, Brooks states, “(Blind
Hazell Brooks injured person).” She alleges that Defendants Kemp and Milton “have ordered hits
on all family members until Patricia files for devorce [sic] for Mr. Edward L. [indecipherable] and
walks off with nothing. They have almost killed Terrone Williams in bed room and Patricia
[indecipherable] as well. ” Later, Brooks alleges that “Mr. Edward J. Glynn died in 2005 may be
alive with 39 mistress [sic] as well as many prostitutes that have been paid by Betty Kemp on
Edward L. Glynn.” Brooks also states that “Mr. Edmound uses everything to get him in the bed with
Terrone.” Brooks does not request any relief.
On July 21, 2015, the magistrate judge issued an order granting Brooks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss any action
brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); see also Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that "§
1915(e)(2) applies only to in forma pauperis proceedings"). The Court must read Brooks’s pro se
complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972), and
accept her allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992). The Court concludes that Brooks’s
complaint must be dismissed as required by § 1915(e)(2).
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if “‘it fails 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, 45-46 (1957). While
a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s allegations must include more
than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”). The court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct.
at 1949. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a “‘probability requirement,’ . . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct.
at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has
not ‘show[n]’ – that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (quoting FED . R.
CIV . P. 8(a)(2)).
Brooks fails to state a discernable claim. Brooks cites no federal statute, nor does she
indicate that she is alleging a state-law claim. In short, the Court has no clue what Brooks is
2
alleging, nor can it say with any degree of certainty that it has jurisdiction over Brooks’s claim,
whatever it may be. Moreover, “[a] complaint may be dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the
allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Clark v. United States, 74 F. App’x 561, 562 (6th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Such is the case here. Accordingly, Brooks’s complaint will
be dismissed.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated: July 28, 2015
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?