Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-70193
February 7, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
I. FACTS
On July 18, 2000, the plaintiff, who refers to himself as "Brian-Douglas-Alan: Shimkus," was arrested in Jackson County. Plaintiff was charged with obstructing justice and possession of a concealed weapon. A jury trial was scheduled to begin on December 12, 2000, in the Jackson County Circuit Court. However, the trial date was adjourned until January 31, 2001. On January 16, 2001, plaintiff filed the instant civil complaint against Mr. John G. McBane, Jr., the State of Michigan, and the County of Jackson. Mr. McBane is the Jackson County prosecutor handling the criminal case against plaintiff.
Plaintiff has also filed Civil Action 01-70314, in which he attempts to remove the pending criminal prosecution from Jackson County Circuit Court to this Federal District Court. In a separate order, the court has ordered that Civil Action 01-70314 be remanded to the Jackson County Circuit Court.
In plaintiffs complaint, he claims that he is the "holder in due course" of the Jackson County criminal action against him, and that he has accepted that action "for value, non-negotiable." Exh. A to Compl., at 3. Apparently, plaintiff believes that the Jackson County criminal case against him is his "property." Plaintiff seeks the following pecuniary damages in connection with his prosecution:
(1) $100,000 for false arrest,
(2) $750,000 for three days of "unlawful imprisonment,"
(3) $7,000,000 for seven incidents of "involuntary servitude" when he was compelled to "appear" in a "false court,"
(4) $1,670,000 for 167 days of restrained liberty/property,
(5) $40,000 for "miscellaneous damages,"
(6) $12,000,000 for "civil RICO damages,"
(7) $4,000,000 for "general damages," and
(8) $12,000,000 in punitive damages related to the RICO violations.
In addition, plaintiff asks the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from operating under the words "State," "County," "City," or "Court." As discussed below, plaintiffs complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed.
II. THE COURT MUST DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), the district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . ." An action is "frivolous" if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact if it states clearly baseless factual contentions. Id. Moreover, a district court may, at any time, sua sponte, dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) when the complaint's allegations are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 479 (6th Cir. 1999).
In this case, plaintiffs complaint alleges that the State of Michigan is not a state, and that the County of Jackson, Michigan is not a county. Moreover, the complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the "secured owner" of the pending criminal action against him in Jackson County Circuit Court. Quite simply, these contentions are factually baseless, and therefore, frivolous. Neitzke, 109 S.Ct. at 1831. Accordingly, the court must, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), dismiss plaintiffs complaint. The court also dismisses plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), as its allegations are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, and devoid of merit. Apple, 183 F.3d at 479.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Civil Action No. 01-70193 is dismissed.