Opinion
Case No. 12-14519
11-09-2012
ROLAND CHARLES BROCKRIEDE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, Defendant.
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on November 9, 2012
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff submitted his pro se complaint [dkt 1] and application to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt 2] on October 12, 2012. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiff's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Under 28 U.S.C § 1915(a), "any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." The reference to assets of "such prisoner" is likely a typographical error; thus, § 1915(a) applies to all natural persons. See Floyd v. U.S. Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 1997). If a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees is filed and accompanied by a facially-sufficient affidavit, the Court should allow the complaint to be filed. See Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir. 1981)). Only after the complaint is filed is it tested to determine whether it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. See id. at 261. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application and has determined that he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. The financial information in the application does not indicate that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee; therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt 2].
B. Review of Plaintiff's Complaint
Upon granting a plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court performs a preliminary screening of the complaint under several provisions of the United States Code. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), the Court is to sua sponte dismiss the case before service on Defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The Court has a duty to construe a pro se plaintiff's pleadings liberally, see, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), but in doing so, it will not re-write a deficient complaint or otherwise serve as counsel for that plaintiff. See GJR Invs, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Construing Plaintiff's complaint liberally, the Court finds Plaintiff's complaint has failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff's complaint consists of a sixty-six-page narrative. This narrative attempts to allege that the United States Social Security Office violated Plaintiff's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. Further, along with his alleged 1st and 5th Amendment violations, Plaintiff appears to claim that the United States Social Security Office acted in a fraudulent fashion with respect to Plaintiff's Social Security retirement benefits. After reviewing Plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds that it is plagued with incoherent statements and or allegations, none of which adequately state a cognizable legal claim under federal or state law. For example, Plaintiff states the following:
"The Petitioner in best belief and knowledge has a . . . 1st and 5th Amendment Right in these presented issues and matters. [The Petitioner has been, by the Federal Social Security Agency and It's Regulatory Officials and Tribunals, charged, prosecuted, and sentenced to unlawful harm, as included unlawful acts against all attempted objections and proper collateral attacks to the unholy acts arising to subterfuge schemes being perpetrated, being further characterized as 'Lie Fraud, Obstruction of Justice, With Initiation of Conspiracy to Perpetuate Cover-Up Schemes Being Facilitated by Racketeering Enterprise.'"(errors in original). As such, Plaintiff's claims were neither "short and plain," nor " simple, concise, and direct." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); (d).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e) as it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted .
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt 2] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint [dkt 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE