1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CARLET MACKLIN, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11646 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

WAYNE COUNTY et al.,

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS (ECF #2) AND (2) 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF #1) 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

INTRODUCTION 

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff Carlet Macklin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action 

against Defendant Wayne County and various other Defendants. (See the 

“Complaint,” ECF #1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed without the 

prepayment of fees or costs. (See the “Application,” ECF #2.) Having reviewed 

Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court GRANTS the Application and DISMISSES the 

Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

ANALYSIS 

A. The Application 

 Applications to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs are governed by 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). This statute provides that a federal court “may authorize 

2:15-cv-11646-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 06/10/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 20
2

the commencement ... of any suit, action, or proceeding ... by a person who 

submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets ... that the person is 

unable to pay such fees....” Id. In her Application, Plaintiff says that she earns no 

wages, has no money in any bank accounts, and has no sources of income. (See 

Application at 1-2, Pg. ID 11-12.) The Court has reviewed the Application and is 

satisfied that the prepayment of the filing fee would cause an undue financial 

hardship on Plaintiff. The Court therefore grants the Application and permits 

Plaintiff to file the Complaint without prepaying the filing fee. 

B. Dismissal of the Complaint 

The Court is required to screen all complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding 

without the prepayment of fees or costs and dismiss those that (i) are frivolous or 

malicious, (ii) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or (iii) 

seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While the Court is obligated to liberally construe documents 

filed by pro se plaintiffs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a 

complaint must still plead sufficient specific factual allegations, and not just legal 

conclusions, in support of each claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–

679 (2009); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–471 (6th Cir. 2010) 

(holding that the dismissal standard of Iqbal applies to a Court's review of a 

complaint under § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim). The Court will therefore 

2:15-cv-11646-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 06/10/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 21
3

dismiss a complaint that does not state a “plausible claim for relief.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 679. 

 It appears that Plaintiff is alleging, among other things, that Defendants have 

stolen her personal property and her Social Security, Medicaid, and/or insurance 

benefits. (See Compl. at 1-2, Pg. ID 1-2.) It also seems as if Plaintiff is claiming 

that she received inadequate medical care and was the target of an extortion 

scheme. (See id.) Plaintiff also says that her children were “taken” away from her. 

(See id. at 2, Pg. ID 2.) Plaintiff asserts that these actions amount to “racketeering” 

and she seeks “a full court hearing with all parties involved ... who have broken 

the law of the RICO Act.” (Id. at 1-2, Pg. ID 1-2.) Finally, Plaintiff has attached a 

two-page, single-spaced typed document to her Complaint that appears to expand 

upon the Complaint’s hand-written allegations. (See id. at Pg. ID 6-10.) Even if 

the Court construed this document as part of the Complaint, in the manner 

presented, it is largely indecipherable. 

 To the extent Plaintiff attempts to state a claim under the federal Racketeer 

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (the “RICO Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et 

seq., her Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. The civil remedies 

section of the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), provides that “[a]ny person injured 

in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter 

may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court....” To demonstrate 

2:15-cv-11646-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 06/10/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 22
4

a violation of § 1962, Plaintiff must show the Defendants engaged in “(1) conduct 

(2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Sedima, 

S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985). Plaintiff, however, has not 

asserted, or even attempted to plead, any of the elements of a civil RICO claim. 

Indeed, the Complaint fails to link the factual allegations alleged to the elements of 

the RICO Act. The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiff’s RICO claim without 

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Foster 

v. Public Storage, Inc., 14-11396, 2014 WL 2154137 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2014) 

(dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) that alleged violation of the RICO Act); 

Otworth v. Williams, Hughes & Cook, PLLC, 2011 WL 1542114, at *2 (W.D. 

Mich. Apr. 21, 2011) (dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) and noting that the 

plaintiff’s “bare reference to the RICO statute is insufficient to state a claim”). 

 The remaining claims in the Complaint – to the extent the Court can discern 

them – appear to be claims brought under state law. The Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (A 

“district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if 

... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 

jurisdiction”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims are dismissed without 

prejudice. 

2:15-cv-11646-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 06/10/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 23
5

CONCLUSION 

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

Application (ECF #2) is GRANTED and the Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 10, 2015 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on June 10, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:15-cv-11646-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 06/10/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 24