Opinion
Case No. 1:05-cv-166.
March 18, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a civil action brought by a pro se plaintiff. The court has granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, in light of his indigence. (docket # 4). Under the provisions of federal law, PUB. L. No. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), the court is required to dismiss any action brought in forma pauperis if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action may be dismissed as frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Accordingly, an action is frivolous within the meaning of section 1915(e)(2)(B) when it is based on either an inarguable legal conclusion or fanciful factual allegations. 490 U.S. at 325. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations of the complaint. Cuno v. Daimler Chrysler, Inc., 386 F.3d 738, 742 (6th Cir. 2005). In applying these standards, the court must read plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), and accept plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, the court concludes that plaintiff's lawsuit is indisputably meritless. Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff's complaint lists seventeen defendants: "United States, St. Mary's Hospital, Automobile Club of America (AAA), Uptown Cleaners, Amway Grand Hotel, Mel Trotter Mission, Comcast Cable Company, Herkimer Hotel and Associates, Sears Department Store, 61st District Court, Standard Federal Bank, Grand Rapids Police Department, Cottage Bar and Restaurant, Grand Rapids Press, City of Grand Rapids, and Congressman Vern Ehler's Office." Plaintiff seeks ten billion dollars in damages. Plaintiff alleges without explanation that Congressman Ehler's office treated him "unfairly." Plaintiff states that the City of Grand Rapids caused plaintiff "stress" by allowing unidentified city police officers to somehow "violate Mr. Martin's rights and other business." The Grand Rapids Press purportedly "failed to report fraud in the federal court and the 61st District Court." The Cottage Bar and Restaurant allegedly "insulted Mr. Martin by serving [him] old food." The Grand Rapids Police Department allegedly arrested plaintiff at a party store located at 25 Division Street. The "party store" purportedly "had Mr. Martin arrested because of false evidence over a state law." Standard Federal Bank "called police on Mr. Martin with false evidence" and changed accounts, "defrauding Mr. Martin out of Money." Plaintiff claims that the 61st District Court "had Mr. Martin evicted and arrested with false evidence." Plaintiff states that Sears Department Store had him "arrested with false evidence." The Herkimer Hotel and Associates "evicted Mr. Martin with false evidence in 61st District Court." Plaintiff alleges that, "Comcast Cable T.V. defrauded Mr. Martin and allowed Mr. Martin's television to be tampered [with] to give free cable T.V. to Herkimer residents and tampered with the telephone company's equipment to allow Mexican citizens to get free cable television while defrauding Mr. Martin and the white people of Grand Rapids, MI with filth and high prices." Plaintiff states that Mel Trotter Mission sold him an automobile that needed repairs and failed in its "obligation to make good." He asserts that the mission used money plaintiff provided "to help evil people who were black to slander Mr. Martin and white people who were giving the mission help." Plaintiff alleges that the Amway Grand Hotel "verbally assaulted him," that he was "evicted from the hotel," and that when he returned a few weeks later, plaintiff was insulted by a security guard. Uptown Cleaners purportedly overcharged plaintiff because plaintiff believes that four pieces of clothing were not actually cleaned. Plaintiff states that AAA failed to honor a fire insurance policy and tried to collect an old debt. Plaintiff states that St. Mary's Hospital falsely accused plaintiff of panhandling in the hospital's lobby, which apparently resulted in plaintiff's arrest. Finally, plaintiff alleges that the United States wrongfully "conspired with the Herkimer Hotel to evict [plaintiff]" by supplying plaintiff's medical information to the hotel. Plaintiff asserts that his court martial had been based on false information.
Upon review, the court finds that dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is appropriate. The United States is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the government has waived sovereign immunity and to identify the specific statutory provision containing the waiver. See Baker v. United States, 817 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1987). The waiver must be express and will not be implied. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). The scope of any waiver of sovereign immunity is to be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. See Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 261 (1999). Plaintiff's claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity. Plaintiff's means of challenging his court martial was through the federal appeals process, not a civil action for an award of monetary damages in this court. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 307-08 (1998); Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997). Similarly, plaintiff's means of challenging adverse state-court decisions is through Michigan's appellate courts. The federal district courts lack appellate jurisdiction over the state courts. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Gilbert v. Ferry, No. 04-1207, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 549077, at * 3 (6th Cir. Mar. 10, 2005).
Plaintiff has failed to state any claim against the United States. The remainder of his claims arise under state law against Michigan residents. In the absence of complete diversity of citizenship, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over such claims.
Upon review, this lawsuit will be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On the same grounds, the court certifies that any appeal of this decision would be frivolous and brought in bad faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).