1

In his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff states that he is

unemployed, that he does not have a regular source of income, that he has $44.00 in

his checking account and $107.00 in his savings account, and that he 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

 

HILL SANDERS, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-cv-13308

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Before the court is a pro se complaint, filed by Plaintiff Hill Sanders, III on August

21, 2009. Contemporaneous to filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to

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

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

 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).

I. STANDARD

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

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

2:09-cv-13308-RHC-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 7
2

 While the court can decipher some portions of Plaintiff’s complaint, much of it is

illegible and incomprehensible. 

2

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). 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). 

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 appears to allege2

 that Defendant “The Ford Motor

Company has a proven if allowed [sic] right to poor black man discriminated against by

some conglomerates due to the conglomerates big name, and my not having been

allowed the right to be right, because of bias.” Defendant further states in his complaint

that “The Ford Motor Co Ste[a]ls Trade Names they use such as Windstar is [sic] from

2:09-cv-13308-RHC-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 8
3

my 1976 Miami Fla formed camp Starwinners. . . . I created the. . . logo through image

[sic] which Co Del Monte Co is [sic] represents my copyright protected new coming t.v.

soap Starwinners.” Plaintiff requests that the court award him damages in the amount

of $20 million on the basis of these allegations. 

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, nor has

he supported his conclusory accusations with factual allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces . . . demands

more than an un-adorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”);

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 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’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: August 27, 2009

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

2:09-cv-13308-RHC-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 9
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-13308.SANDERS.1915.Dismiss.ljd.wpd

4

on this date, August 27, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13308-RHC-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 10