Opinion
2:21-MC-50359-TGB-APP
11-01-2021
ALEXANDER R. GIFFORD, Plaintiff, v. EBAY, INC., Defendant.
ORDER STRIKING AND DISMISSING MISCELLANEOUS CASE
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff is an enjoined filer. On December 17, 2020, the Honorable Thomas Ludington issued an order prohibiting Alexander Gifford from filing any new lawsuits in the Eastern District of Michigan without first obtaining permission from a judge of this Court. See Alexander R. Gifford et. al. v. United States of America et. al., Case No. 20-cv-13187, ECF No. 5, PageID. 16. No such permission has been given here, and Mr. Gifford's suit must be dismissed.
To the extent Mr. Gifford's filing may be construed liberally as asking for permission to proceed with a lawsuit, the Court cannot grant it. Having reviewed Mr. Gifford's Complaint for merit, the Court determines that the Complaint does not assert an intelligible, nonfrivolous claim. Therefore, the documents filed by Mr. Gifford under this miscellaneous case number are STRICKEN and the matter is DISMISSED.
Plaintiffs one-paragraph “Statement of Claim” generally complains about online retailer eBay's practice of charging sales tax on goods sold through eBay's website. Plaintiff argues that “once you have purchased something legally at retail, which would include a sales tax, it is then yours to do with what you choose, ” and that imposing taxes on the sale of used goods “would actually be the definition of double taxation.” CompL, ECF No. 1, PageID.6. But Plaintiff does not identify what legal right of his the “double taxation” he describes violates. Similarly, Plaintiffs general allegation that “something is awry and needs correction” with respect to the various fees, sales tax, and “increased shipping costs” collected by eBay does not identify any legal right of Plaintiffs that has been violated, nor any provision of law that would offer Plaintiff a remedy. ECF No. 1, PageID.6. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that he has sold anything through eBay, has purchased anything from eBay, or has otherwise been harmed by the practice about which he complains. Finally, Plaintiffs general allegation that “attempting to make up deficits through a taxation without adequate representation starts to sound like a constitutional crisis” does not present a cognizable legal claim. Id.
For these reasons, the case is DISMISSED, and Plaintiffs motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.