Prout v. Michigan, State of et al, No. 2:2009cv14386 - Document 7 (E.D. Mich. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Granting 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and Dismissing without prejudice 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Patrick J Duggan. (NHol)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ALFRED J. PROUT, Case No. 09-14386 Plaintiff, v. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan STATE OF MICHIGAN and ADRIAN DISTRICT COURT, Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. District Courthouse, Eastern District of Michigan, on December 7, 2009. PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE On November 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Having reviewed the application, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff does not possess sufficient assets to pay the filing fee and grants Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. Nonetheless, because the Court finds that Plaintiff s complaint as currently drafted fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court dismisses the case. I. Summary Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a court to dismiss a case in which the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal (i) is 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). II. Failure to State a Claim on which Relief may be Granted On November 17, 2009, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Specifically, the Court concluded that the original complaint failed to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that it failed to provide adequate notice of the substance of Plaintiff s claims. Plaintiff filed a response to the Court s order on November 30, 2009. Therein Plaintiff requests that the Court place the present case on hold and enter an order requiring investigation into Plaintiff s claims for state assistance and social security disability benefits. As to the nature of the claims in his original complaint, Plaintiff explains, I have had a senior citizen kidnapped, I have a dead dependent, I had approximately $12,000.00 worth of business equipment stollen [sic] and my house has been forfeited. (Pl. s Resp.) Even with Plaintiff s response, the Court remains uncertain of the nature of the claims Plaintiff intends to assert against the State of Michigan and the Adrian District Court. There is no explanation, for example, of the involvement of the State of Michigan and the Adrian District Court in the alleged kidnapping, death, larceny, and forfeiture. Furthermore, this Court has no authority to order the investigation of Plaintiff s requests for financial assistance from the government. Consequently, there is no claim identified in the present lawsuit for which the Court could grant Plaintiff relief. Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copy to: Alfred J. Prout 13986 Rockdale Street Detroit, MI 48223 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.