1In her application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff states that she is

unemployed, that she has no money in any account, and that she has no other

assets. Accordingly, the court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

CARMANITA GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:09-CV-13590-DT

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, et

al.,

Defendant.

/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On September 11, 2009, Plaintiff Carmanita Gonzales initiated the abovecaptioned action, alleging that Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigations and Social

Security Administration have violated Plaintiffs rights under the Freedom of Information

Act (the “FOIA”). Contemporaneous to filing her complaint, Plaintiff filed an application

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

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).1

 For the reasons stated below, the

court will summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which

the court can grant relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Complaints filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to the

screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863,

866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss

2:09-cv-13590-RHC-MAR Doc # 3 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 7
2

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). 

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). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must show, construing the complaint

in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true,

Evans-Marshall v. Board of Educ., 428 F.3d 223, 228 (6th Cir. 2005), “enough facts to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations

contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Thus, “a pleading that

offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint

suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). To avoid dismissal, Plaintiff’s complaint must

cross “the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

2:09-cv-13590-RHC-MAR Doc # 3 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 8
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-13590.GONZALES.1915.FOIA.Damages.wpd

3

The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the FOIA by refusing to release her records

and claims she is therefore entitled to damages in the amount of seven million dollars. 

However, the Sixth Circuit has explicitly held that “[a]n award of damages is not

authorized for an alleged violation of [the] Freedom of Information Act under 5 U.S.C. §

552.” Cooper v. Meese, No. 88-5705, 1989 WL 25765, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 1989). 

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). 

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. # 2] is GRANTED.

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: October 16, 2009

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

on this date, October 16, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13590-RHC-MAR Doc # 3 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 9