1 In seeking in forma pauperis status, Plaintiff signed and dated his complaint,

March 16, 2009, stating that he is homeless, is currently “housed at the BCA Stone

Crest Hospital,” and is in “poverty.” (Pl.’s Compl. at 1, 4.) Accordingly, the court will

grant Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

ERIC E. MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-cv-11055

BCA STONE CREST HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

STATUS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE

Before the court is Plaintiff Eric E. Miller’s pro se complaint, filed March 20, 2009.

In his complaint, Plaintiff asks the court to grant him in forma pauperis status1; Plaintiff is

currently proceeding in this action without prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(1). For the reasons stated below, the court will summarily dismiss the

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

I. STANDARD

Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss complaints

that are frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). 

2:09-cv-11055-RHC-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 03/30/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 8
A complaint is frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it

lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989), contains “factual allegations that are ‘fantastic or delusional[,]’ or if it is based on

legal theories that are indisputably meritless,” Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th

Cir. 2000) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). A plaintiff fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, when, construing the complaint in a light most favorable to

the plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true, the plaintiff undoubtedly can

prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Sistrunk v.

City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Kline v. Rogers, 87 F.3d 176, 179

(6th Cir. 1996); Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1138 (6th Cir. 1995). 

Even if a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, “a district court may, at any

time, dismiss sua sponte a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a

complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or

no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974)). 

II. DISCUSSION

In his complaint, Plaintiff states that he is asking “for a Mandatory Injunctive

Order in the Detroit’s Receiving, Mental Health Quasi-Governmental Agencies.” (Pl.’s

Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff’s primary allegation is that “[b]etween the hours of 1:00 and 3:00

A.M. my sleep dis-order was being stalked by Three Detroit Receiving Hospital Staff

members” and that this continued “for several sessions.” (Pl.’s Compl. at 1.)

2:09-cv-11055-RHC-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 03/30/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 9
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-11055.MILLER.Summary.Dismiss.IFP.Fantastical.ljd.wpd

3

The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, and that, furthermore, his factual allegations are “fantastic” such that the court

must dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

Brown, 207 F.3d at 866. Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered a legal wrong. 

Plaintiff has not identified any federal statute which entitles him to relief; nor is the court

aware of any such statute. Because Plaintiff does not have even an arguable claim to

relief, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED in

forma pauperis status.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [Dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 30, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, March 30, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-11055-RHC-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 03/30/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 10