United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY RENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court previously entered an Order (Doc. No. 4) directing
Plaintiff to either to pay the filing fee or to submit a
properly completed Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and to amend her Complaint to
more completely describe her cause of action. In response to
that Order, Plaintiff has filed an amended in forma
pauperis application (Doc. No. 6) and a document she
characterizes as a Motion to Pay in Installments (Doc. No.
good cause shown, the application to proceed as a pauper
(Doc. No. 6) will be granted. Because Plaintiff proceeds
in forma pauperis, the Court must conduct an initial
review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Initial Review Screening Standards
Court is statutorily required to conduct an initial review of
the complaint of a plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis and to dismiss it prior to service of process
if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). The screening procedure established by §
1915(e) applies to in forma pauperis complaints
filed by non- prisoners as well as to those filed by
prisoners. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,
608 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones
v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
an in forma pauperis complaint will be permitted to
proceed if it contains “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Conversely, the action
must be dismissed as frivolous when it is “based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory” or when the
“factual contentions [on which it relies] are clearly
baseless.” Anson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 529
Fed.Appx. 558, 559 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). Thus, when a
complaint alleges facts that are “clearly baseless,
” “fanciful” or “delusional, ”
it may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). A complaint that is
legally frivolous “ipso facto” fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Hill, 630 F.3d at 470 (citing Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 328-29).
se complaints are to be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, and should
therefore be liberally construed.” Williams v.
Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011). Pro
se litigants, however, are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989);
see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed.Appx. 608, 613
(6th Cir. 2011) (“[A] court cannot create a claim which
[a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Cf.
Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004)
(“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel
or paralegal to pro se litigants.”); Young
Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 Fed.Appx. 506, 510 (6th Cir.
2011) (“[W]e decline to affirmatively require courts to
ferret out the strongest cause of action on behalf of pro
se litigants. Not only would that duty be overly
burdensome, it would transform the courts from neutral
arbiters of disputes into advocates for a particular party.
While courts are properly charged with protecting the rights
of all who come before it, that responsibility does not
encompass advising litigants as to what legal theories they
Review of the Complaint
Court's previous Order, Plaintiff was directed to submit
an Amended Complaint within 21 days of her receipt of that
Order. The Court noted that the initial Complaint was
deficient because, among other reasons, it simply listed a
number of Constitutional amendments and federal statutes
Plaintiff believes have been violated, but Plaintiff did not
identify any of the defendants or included a statement of
facts identifying in what way any of the defendants have
violated her federal constitutional or statutory rights.
of filing an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has filed the
Motion to Pay in Installments, which appears not to be a
request to pay the filing fee in installments but, instead, a
demand that she be paid damages in installments. Insofar as
this document reflects an effort by Plaintiff to explain her
claims in greater detail, the Court construes it as an
attempt to comply with the requirement that she amend the
document, Plaintiff demands $300, 000, 000 in damages arising
from her “genetic hate crime suit.” (Doc. No. 5
at 1.) She alleges that Defendants Metro Department of Law,
Progressive, Inc., the Davidson County Sheriff's
Department, Universal Health Services, and Beck and Arnley
World Parts have used the U.S. Postal Service and logistic
systems to “implement and or allow criminal
identify theft as well as falsification of document and using
chemical duress to oppress a neighborhood in multiple
demographic [sic].” (Id.) The motion continues
in that vein for several additional pages. Appended to the
motion are: (1) a notice that states, “This is just a
motion for payment and or settlement” (id. at
7); and (2) a set of interrogatory questions Plaintiff
apparently intended to serve upon Progressive Inc. (Doc. No.
Court finds that the allegations in the new filing, like
those in the original Complaint, are clearly fanciful,
baseless, and delusional. In addition, Plaintiffs new filing
still fails to allege specific facts showing that any of the
named defendants actually violated Plaintiffs constitutional
or other rights. In short, even read collectively, Plaintiffs
filings fail to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Hill, 630 F.3d at 470.
This action is subject to dismissal on that basis.
in forma pauperis application will be granted, but
this action will be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim for which relief may be ...