UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SELINA MILLER, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14689 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

BRIDGETT MONGAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED

WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (ECF #2) AND DISMISSING 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff Selina Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed this action 

against seven individual defendants and “Job Family Services.” (See the 

“Complaint,” ECF #1.) Plaintiff’s handwritten Complaint, in its entirety, reads as 

follows: 

1. Each Individual has falsely made statements about the 

plaintiff Selina Miller. 

2. Each defendant has falsely alleged the plaintiff is an 

associate to receive funds not distributed to the 

family/plaintiff. 

3. Each defendant has communicated with plaintiff’s 

health/medical providers falsely alleging they supportive 

[sic] caregivers for false reported resources. 

 

2:14-cv-14689-MFL-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 12/29/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 10
    2 

Relief 

1. Punitive Damages = $1 million 

2. Compensatory Damages = $1 million 

3. Review of Michigan Family Privacy Act laws 

(Complaint at 1-2.) Plaintiff has also filed an Application to Proceed in District 

Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (See the “Application,” ECF #2.) 

A. The Court Grants Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

Federal law allows a court to authorize a litigant to proceed without 

prepaying fees or costs, or in forma pauperis, when the litigant “submits an 

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the 

person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(a)(1). If an application to proceed in forma pauperis is accompanied by a 

facially sufficient affidavit, the Court should grant the application. See Gibson v. 

R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990). The Court has reviewed 

Plaintiff’s Application and finds that it “contains allegations of poverty sufficient 

to allow [her] to proceed without prepayment of costs.” Id. at 262. Accordingly, 

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

B. The Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

This Court must read a pro se Complaint, such as the one Plaintiff filed here, 

liberally and employ “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, federal courts 

2:14-cv-14689-MFL-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 12/29/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 11
    3 

are always “under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction,” 

and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction. 

FEW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990). In fact, a federal court 

must dismiss an action if it determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Wagenknecht v. U.S., 533 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2008) 

(“a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action when it lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction”). The burden of establishing this Court’s jurisdiction “rests upon the 

party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 

375, 377 (1994). 

Even construing Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, the Court is unable to 

determine if the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff’s 

Complaint appears to allege that the Defendants made false statements about 

Plaintiff and/or received funds intended for Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff does not 

appear to base her Complaint on any federal statute or authority. Nor does she 

allege that the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. Because 

the Court cannot discern a basis for its subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must 

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Wagenknecht, supra. 

2:14-cv-14689-MFL-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 12/29/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 12
    4 

For all the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Plaintiff’s Application (ECF #2) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 

#1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 29, 2014 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on December 29, 2014, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-14689-MFL-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 12/29/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 13