UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHARON MADISON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-13278

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

EXTRUDEHONE CORP.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Sharon Madison, filed a pro se complaint on August 20, 2009, along with an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and an application to appoint counsel. 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). The court will deny Plaintiff’s application to

appoint counsel, because she has not demonstrated that she has made efforts to obtain counsel on

her own or that “exceptional circumstances” exist that warrant the appoint of counsel in this

case. See Lavado v. Keohene, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993) (“Appointment of counsel in a

civil case is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional

circumstances.”). 

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 case if the court

finds that it 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.” 28

5:09-cv-13278-JCO-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 09/03/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 11
-2-

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous under § 1915 if it lacks an arguable basis in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596,

600 (6th Cir. 1998) (stating that complaints can be dismissed a frivolous “only when the claim is

‘based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,’ or where a complaint’s ‘factual contentions are

clearly baseless’”).

Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” a plaintiff's

obligation to allege grounds entitling her to relief “requires more than labels and conclusions,

and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal and end citations omitted). “Factual allegations

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the

allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555 (internal and end

citations and footnote omitted).

Plaintiff’s complaint is virtually devoid of factual allegations. Plaintiff has checked

boxes indicating that she was “terminated” from her employment and that Defendant

discriminated against her based upon her “color.” Otherwise, Plaintiff’s entire complaint is that

her “personal life was violated, every time I would visited my doctor, my personal life was

spreaded around the work place.” Complaint at 2. Even viewing the complaint liberally, in light

of Plaintiff’s pro se status, these factual allegations do not state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to appoint counsel is DENIED.

5:09-cv-13278-JCO-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 09/03/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 12
-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Date: September 3, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Sharon Madison

13720 Buffalo, Detroit, MI 48212 on this date, September 3, 2009.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:09-cv-13278-JCO-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 09/03/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 13