UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES EDWARD COOPER, Case No. 09-CV-12150 

 Plaintiff, Hon. John Corbett O’Meara 

v. 

CHEMICAL BANK, UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA, and DEPT. OF JUSTICE, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

 

 Plaintiff James Edward Cooper filed a pro se complaint on June 3, 2009, along with an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court finds Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis to be facially sufficient and, therefore, grants Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 

262 (6th Cir. 1990). 

 Once a court grants a plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must review 

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court shall dismiss the complaint at any time 

if the court finds that it fails “to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 

(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court’s determination of failure to state a claim under § 1915(e) is the same as 

its determination under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 1 Moore’s Fed. Practice § 4.41[3]. Pro se

plaintiff’s pleadings are liberally construed. Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F.Supp.2d 391, 392 

5:09-cv-12150-JCO-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 07/23/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 14
(E.D. Mich. 1994) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, even a pro se 

plaintiff’s complaint “must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the 

material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Scheid v. Farmer 

Candy Shops, Inc., 89 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988). Conclusory and unsupported statements are 

insufficient to state a claim. Dellis v. Corrections Corp. of America, 25 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 

2001). See also Hendrock v. Gilbert, 68 Fed. Appx. 573, 574 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The court is not 

required to accept non-specific factual allegations and inferences or unwarranted legal 

conclusions”). Furthermore, “factual allegations must be enough to raise the right to relief above 

a speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Plaintiff twice attempted to obtain a one-dollar presidential coin from Defendant 

Chemical Bank. Chemical Bank, a members-only institution, denied Plaintiff’s request and, after 

Plaintiff refused to leave, had the police escort him from the premises. As far as the court can 

tell, Plaintiff alleges Chemical Bank’s refusal to provide the coin was based on discrimination 

against Plaintiff’s economic status and race. Plaintiff seeks one-million dollars in compensation 

for harm suffered as a result of Chemical Bank’s discrimination. 

 Plaintiff has failed to provide any factual allegations beyond Chemical Bank’s refusal to 

serve him because he was not a member of the bank. That a members-only bank refuses to serve 

non-members does not raise claims of discrimination above a speculative level. Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555. Plaintiff’s has therefore failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous and for 

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

5:09-cv-12150-JCO-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 07/23/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 15
Based on the preceding order, any appeal by Plaintiff would be frivolous and not in good 

faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F.Supp.2d 796, 802 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

Date: July 23, 2009 s/John Corbett O’Meara

 United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of this order was served upon plaintiff on this date, July 23, 2009, by 

U.S. mail. 

 s/William Barkholz

 Case Manager 

5:09-cv-12150-JCO-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 07/23/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 16