Opinion
Civil 22-11368
06-23-2022
RODNEY COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., STEPHEN P. BROWN, MARY GLASSFORD, DETROIT RADIATOR CORP., and DONALD H. HANNON, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
HONORABLE LINDA V. PARKER JUDGE
This is Plaintiff's third attempt to proceed with his claims against Defendants in federal court. This Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's first-filed action, Civil Case No. 22-10274, because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction when ordered to do so. See Op. & Order, Collins v. Detroit Radiator Corp., No. 22-cv-10274 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2022), ECF No. 16; see also Op. & Order, id. (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2022), ECF No. 4. The Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's second-filed action, Civil Case No. 22-10941, because it failed for the same reasons. See Op. & Order, Collins v. Detroit Radiator Corp., No. 22-10941 (E.D. Mich. May 17, 2022), ECF No. 33. In this case, three times is not the charm.
Plaintiff's most recent Complaint still continues to allege only state law claims (fraud, violation of state court policy, worker's compensation). There is no basis for diversity jurisdiction as Plaintiff and at least two defendants are Michigan citizens. Therefore, the Court is again summarily dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
To the extent Plaintiff does not understand why the Court keeps dismissing his filings, he is encouraged to consult the clinic at the courthouse available to assist pro se parties. Information about the clinic is available at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/ProSe Clinic2019.pdf. If Plaintiff continues to persist in filing his Complaint in federal court, the Court may bar him from future filings without first obtaining permission from the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.