Opinion
Case No. 08-CV-13838.
September 23, 2008
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: NOTICE OF INTENDED DISMISSAL
Plaintiff LeKendrick Lawun Murphy filed this action on September 8, 2008. In his pro se Complaint, Plaintiff recounts his monetary transactions with Defendants and appears to allege a conversion of Plaintiff's property by Defendants. (Pl.'s Compl. at 1-2.) Plaintiff also narrates a subsequent judicial proceeding between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the same property. (Pl.'s Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff now asks the court to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff asserts he is employed by Labor Ready in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he earns $7.65 per hour. He possesses no other assets. To proceed in forma pauperis, a person must "submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Because Plaintiff has complied with the statute, the court will grant Plaintiff in forma pauperis status.
While the rules of notice pleading are generally forgiving, at minimum a complaint "shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 8(a). Plaintiff's Complaint does not fulfill any of these requirements. First, Plaintiff has made no statement regarding whether this court has jurisdiction to hear his case. Second, even if this court were to have jurisdiction in his case, Plaintiff has not stated any claim or grounds for a claim for which this court may grant relief. Finally, Plaintiff's Complaint lacks any request for relief mandated by law. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
In addition, Local Rule 5.1 requires that papers filed with the court "be plainly typewritten, printed, or prepared by a clearly legible duplication process." E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a). While the court understands that pro se litigants may not have access to the methods of preparation available to other litigants, the court does require that filings be legible. Plaintiff's Complaint does not meet this requirement.
Were the court able to read Plaintiff's Complaint, the court would then assess the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Complaints filed in forma pauperis are subject to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and dismiss complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff LeKendrick Lawun Murphy is GRANTED in forma pauperis status.
Plaintiff LeKendrick Lawun Murphy IS FURTHER ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in legible writing, on or before October 7, 2008, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court specifically directs Plaintiff to indicate, in a legible manner, the court's basis for jurisdiction, Plaintiff's grounds for relief, and Plaintiff's requested relief.