UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Paul McDonald,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-14078

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.

Jonathan Stone et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Pro se Plaintiff Paul McDonald (“McDonald”) filed a Complaint against

Defendants Jonathan Stone (“Stone”) and Evergreen Lutheran Church (“Evergreen”).

He requests to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court GRANTS McDonald’s

request to proceed IFP and DISMISSES his Complaint as frivolous. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) provides indigent parties with access to the federal court

system. It says:

[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without

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

includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to

pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action,

defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.

To prevent potential IFP litigants from abusive or petty litigation, § 1915(e)(2)(B) allows

courts to sua sponte dismiss actions that are frivolous, malicious, or which fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

An action is frivolous if “the complaint contains only conclusory allegations and

1

2:14-cv-14078-VAR-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 10/24/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 24
fails to allege any facts, which if proved, would afford a basis for the granting of relief.”

Papas v. Bertrum, 600 F. Supp. 174, 175 (D. Mass. 1985) aff'd, 782 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir.

1985). Moreover, frivolity can occur when a complaint is filled with “vague and largely

incomprehensible claims.” Mayfield v. Collins, 918 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 1990). 

The Court concludes McDonald’s complaint is frivolous. Count I alleges

promissory estoppel. Counts II and III challenge Evergreen’s and Stone’s eligibility for

26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) tax exemption status. And, Count IV alleges that Stone failed to

perform a charitable subscription. McDonald demands $100,000 in damages.

Counts I and IV allege state law claims grounded in contract law, and thus, the

Court does not have independent jurisdiction of them. For Counts II, III, and IV, the

Court is unconvinced McDonald has standing. To satisfy Article III's standing

requirements, McDonald must show, among other things, that he suffered an actual

injury in fact that is concrete and particularized. In addition, the injury must be fairly

traceable to the challenged actions of the Defendants. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.

Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). McDonald fails to

explain how he was personally injured by the factual allegations in Counts II, III, and IV.

The Court GRANTS McDonald in forma pauperis status, but DISMISSES his

Complaint without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: October 24, 2014

2

2:14-cv-14078-VAR-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 10/24/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 25
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Paul McDonald by electronic

means or U.S. Mail on October 24, 2014.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

3

2:14-cv-14078-VAR-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 10/24/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 26