UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEKENDRICK LAWUN MURPHY,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 08-14140

v. HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

DONALD E. SHELTON,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Before the Court is Plaintiff LeKendrick Lawun Murphy’s Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. A review of Plaintiff’s application supports Plaintiff’s 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

Donald E. Shelton, a Washtenaw County Circuit Judge.

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 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

2:08-cv-14140-DPH-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 9
2

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). 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).

Liberally construing the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Shelton,

a Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge. The Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations

against Defendant Shelton, other than stating that Defendant Shelton violated past judgments.

Additionally, Defendant Shelton, acting in his capacity as a judge, is entitled to absolute immunity.

It is well settled that judicial officers are absolutely immune from claims for damages under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2, filed

September 26, 2008) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED as 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 610-611.

s/ DENISE PAGE HOOD 

DENISE PAGE HOOD

United States District Judge

DATED: January 23, 2009

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

Murphy, 312 W. Huron, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 on January 23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

S/William F. Lewis 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14140-DPH-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 10
3

2:08-cv-14140-DPH-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 11