UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

VIRGINIA PARK COMMUNITY 

COALITION, 

and 

JOYCE MOORE, 

and 

CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, 

Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 14-14775 

v. HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

 HON. MONA K. MAJZOUB 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 

and 

CITY OF DETROIT MAYOR MIKE 

DUGGAN, 

Defendants. 

 / 

OPINION AND ORDER DIMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT UNDER 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (Dkt. 1) 

 Plaintiff Joyce Moore, proceeding pro se, filed this instant lawsuit along with 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis filed on December 17, 2014, (Dkt. 1; 

Dkt. 2). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis is GRANTED and her complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). 

4:14-cv-14775-TGB-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 33
2

I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or without the 

prepayment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) provides that: 

Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, 

prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding...without 

prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits 

an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets... [and] that 

the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 

 

 If an application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed along with a facially 

sufficient affidavit, the court should permit the complaint to be filed. See Gibson v. 

R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990). Once the complaint has been 

filed, it is then tested to determine whether it is frivolous or if it fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. See id. at 261. The Court finds Plaintiff’s 

financial affidavit to be facially sufficient; therefore, the Court will GRANT 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

II. Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

 The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress, in enacting the federal in 

forma pauperis statute, “intended to guarantee that no citizen shall be denied an 

opportunity to commence, prosecute, or defend an action, civil or criminal, in any 

court of the United States, solely because... poverty makes it impossible... to pay or 

secure the costs of litigation.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 

118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 

331, 342, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948)). At the same time, however, “Congress 

recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the 

4:14-cv-14775-TGB-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 34
3

public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing 

frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’ ” Denton, 504 U.S. at 31 (quoting 

Neitzke v. Wiliams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)). 

Responding to this concern, Congress provided § 1915(e)(2) which establishes that a 

court “shall dismiss the case” if the court finds that: 

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or 

(B) the action or appeal— 

 (i) is frivolous or malicious; 

 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 

 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

 immune from such relief. 

 

 When a plaintiff proceeds without the assistance of counsel, a court is 

required to liberally construe documents and hold them to a less stringent standard 

than similar pleadings drafted by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Nevertheless, a complaint must contain 

more than legal labels, conclusions, and a recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 

L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Rather, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

 Here, Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted because 

the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over her claim. A federal court’s 

jurisdiction is limited to those subject matters that arise either from a federal 

question of law, that is, an issue arising under the Constitution or a federal statute 

4:14-cv-14775-TGB-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 35
4

(“federal question” jurisdiction), or from a dispute between two parties from 

different states of the Union (“diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction). 

 For a court to have federal question jurisdiction, the action must arise under 

the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, 

 Plaintiff cites 42 U.S.C. § 5301, a provision of the Housing and Community 

Development Act of 1974 (“HCDA”) to argue that the City of Detroit’s proposed 

changes to the grant program violate federal law. Section 5301 details the purposes 

of the Housing and Community Development Act, an act aimed to deal with “critical 

social, economic, and environmental problems facing the Nation’s urban 

communities.” 42 U.S.C. § 5301(a). While this section lays out the general 

purposes of the act, it contains no provision authorizing a private cause of action to 

ensure enforcement of the act. In other words, the law does not allow private 

individuals to bring a law suit to enforce its provisions. 1 See Latinos Unidos De 

Chelsea En Accion (Lucha) v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev., 799 F.2d 774, 795 (1st 

Cir. 1986); see also King v. Town of Hempstead, 161 F.3d 112, 114-15 (2nd Cir. 

1998) (“Most of the language of § 5301(c) merely sets forth general goals for the 

programs funded by HCDA, including housing code enforcement. As such, it does 

not create...a federal right enforceable by a § 1983 suit.”) In the absence of any 

statutory authority creating a private cause of action to enforce the statute, 

Plaintiff’s claim does not present a federal question. 

 

1 The Ninth Circuit has held that Section 5304(k) creates a private cause of action for persons 

permanently displaced as a result of a grantee’s use of HCDA funds. See Price v. City of Stockton, 

390 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2004). However, this section is inapplicable here. 

4:14-cv-14775-TGB-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 36
5

 Further, Plaintiff has no alternative basis for subject matter jurisdiction 

because there is no diversity of citizenship. For diversity jurisdiction, there must be 

diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy must 

exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity of citizenship requires “complete 

diversity,” that is, that all defendants be from a different state than all plaintiffs. 

See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2404, 

57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978) (“Congress has established the basic rule that diversity 

jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 only when there is complete diversity of 

citizenship. ). Plaintiff is suing HUD and the City of Detroit. Like Plaintiff, the 

City of Detroit is a Michigan resident. Since Plaintiff and the City of Detroit are 

both Michigan residents, the suit does not meet the requirement of complete 

diversity. 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

4:14-cv-14775-TGB-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 37
6

 Because there is no federal question jurisdiction and there is no complete 

diversity of citizenship, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this 

complaint, and it must be dismissed.2

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

GRANTED and her complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to § 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 30, 2015 s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on January 30, 

2015, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties, and sent 

to unrepresented parties via postal mail. 

 s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

 

2 In addition to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s complaint is not yet ripe to be 

adjudicated. The Constitution limits the judicial power of the federal courts to real cases or 

controversies. Warshak v. United States, 532 F.3d 521, 525 (6th Cir. 2008). A real case or 

controversy must be ripe, that is fit for judicial adjudication. See id. at 525-26. Here, HUD has not 

yet approved Detroit’s proposed changes to the plan. The Secretary of HUD must approve grants to 

local governments. 42 U.S.C. § 5304(c). Since HUD has yet to approve the proposed plan, the 

dispute is not ripe for adjudication. 

4:14-cv-14775-TGB-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 38