Matthews v. One West Bank

Full title: EUGENE F. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff, v. ONE WEST BANK, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: May 13, 2010

Case No. 10-11894 (E.D. Mich. May. 13, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 10-11894.

May 13, 2010

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

JOHN O'MEARA, District Judge

Plaintiff Eugene Matthews filed his complaint on May 11, 2010, and has also requested in forma pauperis status, the appointment of counsel, and a temporary stay of execution. The court finds Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis to be facially sufficient and, therefore, grants Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a);Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 262 (6^th Cir. 1990).

Once a court grants a plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court "shall dismiss" the case if the court finds that it is "(i) 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 under § 1915 if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600 (6^th Cir. 1998) (stating that complaints can be dismissed a frivolous "only when the claim is 'based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,' or where a complaint's 'factual contentions are clearly baseless'").

It is not clear what causes of action Plaintiff intends to pursue, as he has not set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief" as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Rather than presenting any factual allegations, he has attached correspondence between himself and his mortgage lender. Plaintiff also seeks a stay, based upon the contention that a "sheriff will move me from my home on May 18, 2010." Plaintiff also requests "a free and clear title to our house" and money damages. The court surmises that Plaintiff's home may be in foreclosure.

Although the court sympathizes with Plaintiff's circumstances, it is clear that the relief sought by Plaintiff cannot be granted by this court. Construing Plaintiff's submissions liberally, in light of his pro se status, the court finds that Plaintiff has neither alleged a federal cause of action nor any other basis for this court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.