UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK JAMES GIZA,1

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 15-11203

v.

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED

WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS,

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL,

AND

FINDING ANY APPEAL FRIVOLOUS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark James Giza’s Application to Proceed Without

Prepaying Fees or Costs. A review of the application supports his claim of pauper

status. The Court grants in forma pauperis status to proceed without prepayment of

the filing fee for this action. However, for the reasons set forth below, the Court

dismisses the Complaint against Defendant.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court may

dismiss a complaint before service on a defendant if it is satisfied that the action is

1

 Plaintiff Mark James Giza apparently has filed a previous case, Giza v. United States,

Case No. 09-13266 before the Honorable Robert H. Cleland, alleging claims under the Clayton

and Sherman Acts. The case was summarily dismissed on August 27, 2009. (Case No. 09-

13266, Doc. No. 4) 

2:15-cv-11203-DPH-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 13
frivolous, malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants who is/are immune from

such relief. A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous “where it lacks an arguable

basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In

McGore v. Wrigglesworth, the Sixth Circuit clarified the procedures a district court

must follow when faced with a civil action filed by a non-prisoner proceeding in

forma pauperis:

Unlike prisoner cases, complaints by non-prisoners are not

subject to the screening process required by § 1915A. 

However, the district court must still screen the complaint

under § 1915(e)(2) ... Section 1915(e)(2) provides us with

the ability to screen these, as well as prisoner cases that

satisfy the requirements of this section. The screening must

occur even before process is served or the individual has

had an opportunity to amend the complaint. The complaint

must be dismissed if it falls within the requirements of §

1915(e)(2) when filed.

McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997)(overruled on other

grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)); Smith v. Bernanke, 283 Fed. Appx.

356, 357 (6th Cir. Jun. 26, 2008). Federal courts hold the pro se complaint to a “less

stringent standard” than those drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519

(1972).

Giza asserts that he is a religious leader and apparently is attempting to

establish tribal citizenship. (Comp., Doc. No. 1, Pg ID 2, 7) Giza alleges he has

2

2:15-cv-11203-DPH-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 14
received fines from traffic tickets, has been arrested and jailed because he is unable

to pay the fines. Id. at Pg ID 4-5. He asserts that “this is really frustrating and violent

and its coming to the point to where we will have to be violent in return.” Id. at Pg

ID 5. Giza seeks the following relief:

The relief requested is this corporate entity be placed into

federal probate until tribal citizenship is established, I can

and will provide clear and convincing evidence of my claim

of tribal status. I am requesting total sanction and

temporary identity and legal provisions of food and

monatary (sic) assistance until this is resolved. I ONLY

ASK FOR BASIC NECESSITIES as you would give

resident alien while acquiring citizenship. I wish to file a

federal protection order on my Human Body and corporate

entity until we can resolve these issues. ...

(Comp., Doc. No. 1, Pg ID 7) 

A liberal reading of Giza’s Complaint shows that he has failed to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Under the principle of sovereign immunity, “the

United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent

is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). 

“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its

agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Giza has not met his

burden that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity as to the claims

alleged in the Complaint. The claims alleged in the Complaint lack arguable basis

either in law or in fact.

3

2:15-cv-11203-DPH-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 15
For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Mark James Giza’s Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). Any Appeal of this Order would be frivolous and would not be taken

in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445

(1962), McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: May 28, 2015

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

record on May 28, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

4

2:15-cv-11203-DPH-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 16