Opinion
21-11311
06-25-2021
Le'Netta Stone, Plaintiff, v. Concord Consumer Co-Op, et al, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION
Sean F. Cox United States District Judge
Acting pro se, Plaintiff Le'Netta Stone filed this action against Defendants: 1) Concord Consumer Co-Op; 2) Marcus Mgmt; and 3) U.S.P.S. D.C. (Trenton). Along with her Complaint in this action, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Indigent litigants may request a waiver of filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Having reviewed Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, this Court GRANTS that application.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the applicable statute requires this Court to dismiss this case, at any time, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) ("the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that" the action "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted."). In addition, even where a plaintiff has paid the filing fee, "a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint 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).
Although this Court is mindful that pro se complaints must be liberally construed, the Court concludes that even when so construed, Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff used a form complaint to file her complaint. She asserts that the basis for federal-court jurisdiction over this action is federal-question jurisdiction and states the following as the specific federal statutes at issue in her case: "Retaliation to filing ADA-Civil Rights Complaint for Accommodation and benefits [HUD-Rent-Section8-disabled]." (ECFNo. 1 at Page ID.3-4). Plaintiffs statement of her claim states, in its entirety:
Constant Mailed court demands Rent, late fees, court cost Another claim (dismissed) of $4,125.00(Id. at PageID.5). Plaintiff states that she seeks the following relief:
Land lord Time May be to [sic] short to stop [cease/desist] order on Eviction of June 20th, 2011. Defendant has taken App'x 11, 000 (2100 (Nov + 999 May) U.S. PS
Acknowledged disability, can not do tax for first time in 40 years Notice other tenants Receive door service As recent As May 30, 2021 Weekend.(Id. atPageID.6).
Even with a liberal reading of the allegations in Plaintiffs complaint, this Court is unable to discern any cognizable claim against Defendants.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.