1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JODIE LEE KLAASSEN,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

09-CV-12982

vs.

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FEE WAIVER

and

ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

I.

This is a purported civil rights case. So far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff, who is

proceeding pro se, claims police brutality, “false incarcerations,” harassment, prosecutorial

misconduct, professional misconduct, and workplace retaliation. For relief, Plaintiff seeks

$30 million and that “any ‘criminal’ charges [be] expunged from” her record.

II.

Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court for a fee waiver. According to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), the court may permit a person to commence a lawsuit without prepaying the

filing fee, provided that the person submits an affidavit demonstrating that he or she "is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." Here, Plaintiff's “Motion to Waive Fees”

indicates that she is indeed indigent. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s request for

in forma pauperis status, thereby permitting Plaintiff to file her Complaint without requiring

2:09-cv-12982-AC-VMM Doc # 3 Filed 08/17/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 32
2

prepayment of the filing fee.

III.

In her Complaint, which is 26 single-spaced pages long, Plaintiff names 19

defendants including the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Corrections, the

Michigan Sheriff Association, the Michigan Association of Community Mental Health

Boards, Advanced Behavior Medicine, various hospitals, the Michigan Department of

Education, the Michigan Bar Association, the Archdiocese of Detroit, and various families

such as “the Cornwell Family” and the “Rutherford Family.” 

However, the Complaint consists entirely of incomprehensible rambling and the

Court is unable to glean from it what this case is about, what claims are being asserted

against who, or the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. As such, the Complaint does not meet

the minimal pleading standards, which require that Plaintiff give Defendants fair notice of

the claims being asserted and the grounds upon which such claims rest. See, e.g.,

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002).

IV.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) reads as follows: 

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction . . .

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief; and 

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the

alternative or different types of relief. 

Within 10 days, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in which she clearly states,

2:09-cv-12982-AC-VMM Doc # 3 Filed 08/17/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 33
3

using “short and plain statements,” what this case is about and what claims she is asserting

against who. Plaintiff shall also clearly state the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction.

Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner will result in the summary

dismissal of this case. 

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 17, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Jodie Lee Klaassen,

7337 Oakman Blvd., Dearborn, MI 48126 and the attorneys of record on this date, August

17, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-12982-AC-VMM Doc # 3 Filed 08/17/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 34