UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAM FRANKLIN THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

/

Civil Case No. 09-12195

DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DONALD A. SCHEER

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [3],

DISMISSING COMPLAINT [1],

and

DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [3]

On June 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint [1] in this case. On July 7, 2009,

the Court entered an Order to Show Cause [2] why the action should not be dismissed for failure

to pay the requisite filing fee, or alternatively, to apply to proceed without prepayment of fees. 

In response, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [3], and moved therein

for the appointment of an attorney. Plaintiff also filed a Letter [4] in support of his Complaint

and Application. Those documents are now before the Court.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that “any court of the United States may authorize the

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment

of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all

assets.” If such a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is accompanied by a facially sufficient

affidavit, the court should allow the complaint to be filed. See Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d

260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990). Only after the complaint is filed should it be tested to determine whether

it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. See id. 

Here, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff’s financial affidavit “contain[s] allegations of

poverty sufficient to allow [Plaintiff] to proceed without prepayment of costs.” See id. at 262. 

2:09-cv-12195-AJT-DAS Doc # 5 Filed 07/29/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 47
-2-

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [3] will be GRANTED, and

the Clerk will be directed to file the Complaint.

Once a complaint is filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), it is tested under §

1915(e). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court “shall dismiss” a case at any time if the court

finds that the case is: “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” A

complaint is frivolous under § 1915 if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 323 (1989); see also Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 600 (6th Cir. 1998)

(complaints should be dismissed as frivolous “only when the claim is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory, or where the complaint’s factual contentions are clearly baseless”). The

Court’s determination of failure to state a claim under § 1915 is the same as its determination under

FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). See 1 MOORE’S FED.PRACTICE § 4.41[3]. That is, a complaint fails to state

a claim where it lacks “either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to

sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc.,

859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988). Although any ambiguities must be resolved in the plaintiff’s

favor, the Court is “not required to accept non-specific factual allegations and inferences or

unwarranted legal conclusions.” See Hendrock v. Gilbert, 68 Fed. Appx. 573, 574 (6th Cir. 2003);

Jackson v. Richards Med. Co., 961 F.2d 575, 577-78.

Here, Plaintiff raises arguments under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the

United States Constitution. Plaintiff alludes to having been targeted by death threats, and notes that

President Obama has benefitted from Secret Service protection and a limousine escort when faced

with such circumstances. Arguing that constitutional principles require his equal treatment, Plaintiff

demands a limousine escort, along with compensation of $100,000,000,000. Furthermore, Plaintiff

argues that his First Amendment rights were abridged when members of the local news media failed

to return his phone calls to discuss Plaintiff’s candidacy for the presidency of the United States. 

From these factual allegations, the Court cannot infer any viable legal theory under which

Plaintiff could sustain a recovery. See Hendrock, 68 Fed. Appx. at 574; Schied, 859 F.2d at 436.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s constitutional claims must be dismissed. Furthermore, the Court declines to

2:09-cv-12195-AJT-DAS Doc # 5 Filed 07/29/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 48
-3-

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s apparent state-law claims for false arrest, false

imprisonment, and defamation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Thus, the Complaint [1] will be DISMISSED in its entirety. 

Because the dismissal of the Complaint will close the case, Plaintiff’s request for

appointment of counsel will be DENIED AS MOOT.

Therefore, the Court being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [3]

is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the Complaint [1].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint [1] is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [3] is

DENIED AS MOOT.

This matter is hereby CLOSED.

SO ORDERED.

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: July 29, 2009

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

29, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/THERESA E. TAYLOR 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12195-AJT-DAS Doc # 5 Filed 07/29/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 49