From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Raohtanem v. Lenhausen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jul 19, 2019
Case No. 19-cv-12023 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 19, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 19-cv-12023

07-19-2019

WAHUNSENACAWAH RAOHTANEM, Plaintiff, v. COURTNEY LENHAUSEN, Defendant.


ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF #2) , (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND (3) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH

On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff Wahunsenacawah Raohtanem filed this action against Defendant Courtney Lenhausen. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Raohtanem appears to seek the discharge of a debt under 12 U.S.C. § 95(A)(2) and $2,500,000 "in accordance with June 10th 2014 - Civil Orders." (See id. at Pg. ID 6.) Raohtanem provides no other information about the alleged Civil Order, and no other information about the alleged debt - except that Raohtanem alleges to be the creditor, not the debtor. (See id. at Pg. ID 5.) Raohtanem asserts the basis for jurisdiction is the "1791 Constitution for the United States: Amendment X" and the "1796 Treaty of Tripoli: Article II." (Id. at Pg. ID 4.) However, in the cover sheet, Raohtanem alleges a "Personal Injury - Product Liability" claim. (Id. at Pg. ID 9.) Raohtanem also attaches an excerpt of a document proclaiming the rights of indigenous peoples. (Id. at Pg. ID 8.) Raohtanem filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (the "Application"). (See Appl., ECF #2.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Application and DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I

Applications to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That statute provides that a federal court "may authorize the commencement ... of any suit, action, or proceeding... by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets ... that the person is unable to pay such fees...." Id.

In the Application, Raohtanem reports a complete lack of income or assets of any value. (See Appl., ECF #2 at Pg. ID 11-12.) The Court has reviewed the Application and is satisfied that the prepayment of the filing fee would cause an undue financial hardship on Raohtanem. The Court therefore grants the Application and permits Raohtanem to file the Complaint without prepaying the filing fee.

II

When a plaintiff is allowed to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs, the Court is required to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it (i) asserts frivolous or malicious claims, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While the Court must liberally construe documents filed by a pro se plaintiff, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a complaint filed by such a plaintiff must nonetheless plead sufficient specific factual allegations, and not just legal conclusions, in support of each claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-679 (2009); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard of Iqbal applies to a Court's review of a complaint under § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim). The Court will therefore dismiss a complaint that does not state a "plausible claim for relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

The Court has carefully reviewed the Complaint and concludes that it does not state a plausible claim for relief. The Court is mindful that a pro se litigant's complaint is held to "less than stringent standards," but Raohtanem's Complaint simply does not allege any facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3). The Court certifies that any appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 19, 2019

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on July 19, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Monda

Case Manager

(810) 341-9764


Summaries of

Raohtanem v. Lenhausen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jul 19, 2019
Case No. 19-cv-12023 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 19, 2019)
Case details for

Raohtanem v. Lenhausen

Case Details

Full title:WAHUNSENACAWAH RAOHTANEM, Plaintiff, v. COURTNEY LENHAUSEN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 19, 2019

Citations

Case No. 19-cv-12023 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 19, 2019)