UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELVINA COOK,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEXIS CARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No.15-11657

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS [2] AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and

affidavit, and for the reasons that follow, GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

The standards governing in forma pauperis motions are set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a). The district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action without the

prepayment of fees or costs by a person who submits an affidavit that she “is unable to pay

such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff claims that she has

no savings, no real estate or other assets of significant value, and is the sole provider for

her four children. Based on this affidavit, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed

without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Even when a plaintiff establishes indigence, the district court must screen the

complaint as mandated by Congress in § 1915(e)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also

2:15-cv-11657-NGE-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 13
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). Specifically, the district court

is obligated to dismiss a civil complaint if it is “frivolous . . .; [or] fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted." § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

As a preliminary matter, the Court is not convinced that it has subject matter

jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint. "[F]ederal courts have a continuing obligation to

inquire into the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction to satisfy themselves that jurisdiction to

entertain an action exists." Campanella v. Commerce Exch. Bank, 137 F.3d 885, 891 (6th

Cir. 1998). "This duty applies irrespective of the parties' failure to raise a jurisdictional

challenge on their own, and if jurisdiction is lacking, dismissal is mandatory." Id. (citing

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims "arising under

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as well as "all

civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and

is between [] citizens of different States[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff's complaint fails to

identify any cause of action arising under federal law. Nor does Plaintiff allege that the

parties are citizens of different states. Where, as here, Plaintiff has failed to assert a

plausible jurisdictional hook permitting this Court to exercise its power over Defendant, it

must, and does, dismiss the complaint.

Moreover, while the Court is mindful that a pro se litigant’s complaint is held to “less

stringent standards” than a complaint drafted by counsel, it must contain facts sufficient to

show that a redressable legal wrong has been committed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520 (1972); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Dismissal is appropriate where "the claim

is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory[.]" Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600

(6th Cir. 1998). Here, the crux of Plaintiff's complaint is that the "Nexis Card Company

2

2:15-cv-11657-NGE-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 14
allowed Dave to make changes to my account without my permission." (Compl. at 1). Even

assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff's account was somehow altered without her permission,

she has failed to raise a legally cognizable claim for relief. Furthermore, it is unclear how,

if at all, Plaintiff was harmed as a result of Defendant's alleged malfeasance. As such, the

Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The

complaint is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

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/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-11657-NGE-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 15