Summary
This United States District Court order grants the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but summarily dismisses the complaint without prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff alleges state-law tort claims including assault, libel, and slander, the court finds that neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction exists because all parties are citizens of Michigan. Consequently, the action fails to meet the requirements for federal adjudication under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1332.
- Whether the complaint must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint contains no plausible federal question claim and diversity jurisdiction is unavailable as all parties are Michigan citizens.
- The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to §1915(e)(2) because it lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“When a complaint is filed IFP, the district court must conduct a summary review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 604-05 (6th Cir. 1997).” (at 1)
“While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged assault, libel, and slander claims seeking $38 million in damages. All parties are Michigan citizens, and the claims are state-law based.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on April 15, 2025. The district court conducted a summary review under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.