Opinion
22-cv-11327
06-23-2022
LATRICE-YVETTE WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. ESTATE OF LATRICE YETTE WATKINS, Defendant.
ORDER (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE; AND (3) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff Latrice-Yvette Watkins filed this action against the Estate of Latrice Yette Watkins. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) That same day, Watkins filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (See Application, ECF No. 2.) For the reasons provided below, the Court GRANTS Watkins' Application (ECF No. 2) and SUMMARILY DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Watkins' Complaint.
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, Watkins reports a complete lack of income or assets of any value. (See Application, ECF No. 2.)
The Court has reviewed the Application and is satisfied that the prepayment of the filing fee would cause an undue financial hardship on Watkins. The Court therefore GRANTS the Application and permits Watkins to proceed in forma pauperis.
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); see also McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). While the Court must liberally construe documents filed by pro se plaintiffs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a complaint nonetheless “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court has reviewed Watkins' Complaint and concludes sua sponte that it must be dismissed.
As a preliminary matter, the Complaint is not clear as to the basis of the Court's jurisdiction. Watkins appears to invoke both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. (See Compl, ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) However, Watkins' Complaint identifies herself and Defendant as both being citizens of Michigan, (see id., PageID.2, 4), and thus there is no diversity jurisdiction here. Watkins also purports to bring claims under a number of federal statutes, (see id., PageID.4), and her invocation of those statutes confers federal question jurisdiction on the Court under 28 U.S.C. §1331.
The problem for Watkins is that her Complaint is devoid of any allegations that could even arguably be construed as stating a cognizable claim based on any of the federal statutes she invokes. The Court therefore concludes that Watkins' Complaint lacks any basis in law or in fact and must be dismissed as frivolous.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Watkins' Complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court further CERTIFIES that an appeal from this Order cannot be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.