Thomas v. Kingswood Hospital et al, No. 2:2012cv14695 - Document 4 (E.D. Mich. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (KKra)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ELAINA THOMAS Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 12-cv-14695 HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN vs. KINGSWOOD HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT This matter is presently before the court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis [docket entry 2]. For the following reasons, the court shall (1) grant the application and therefore allow the complaint to be filed without prepayment of the filing fee, and (2) dismiss the complaint because it is frivolous and/or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the court may permit a person to commence a lawsuit without prepaying the filing fee, provided the person submits an affidavit demonstrating that he/she is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. In the present case, plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis makes the required showing of indigence. The court shall therefore grant the application and permit the complaint to be filed without requiring plaintiff to prepay the filing fee. Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, the court is required by statute to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it (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). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In other words, a complaint is frivolous if based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly baseless facts or a legal interest which clearly does not exist or fantastic or delusional scenarios. Id. at 327-28. To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Further, the court is required to dismiss the complaint, whether or not plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The facts showing the existence of jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint. Romano v. Kardashian, No.12-50960, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106767, at *2-3 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2012); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The sum of plaintiff s claim is that individual defendant, Dr. Sravanthi Pajerla, violated some form of confidentiality agreement when he released information regarding plaintiff s son to Kelli Harper. Ms. Harper s identity and role in this litigation is unclear. Furthermore, plaintiff does not base her claim on any federal statute or authority. Nor does she affirmatively allege that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been satisfied. Upon reviewing plaintiff s complaint, the Court fails to discern any basis for the exercise of federal question or diversity subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Romano, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106767, at *3; see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1345 and 1346. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The complaint is filed and the filing fee need not be prepaid. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dated: November 7, 2012 Detroit, Michigan _S/ Bernard A. Friedman________________ BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.