1

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

unemployed, that the only money he receives is from state assistance, that he has no

money in a checking or 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

 

BLAINE V. GRAY, II,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-cv-13404

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Before the court is Plaintiff Blaine V. Gray II’s pro se complaint, filed August 27,

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 may, and will, summarily

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and 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-13404-RHC-DAS Doc # 3 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 20
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). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it contains factual

allegations that are ‘fantastic or delusional’ or if it is based on legal theories that are

indisputably meritless.” Brown, 207 F.3d at 866. 

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must show “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). The court must construe the complaint in a light

most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all the factual allegations as true. 

Evans-Marshall v. Board of Educ., 428 F.3d 223, 228 (6th Cir. 2005). Yet, “the tenet

that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is

inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings this civil action citing to federal crimes under 18 U.S.C. § § 241,

242, 245, and citing to 42 U.S.C. § 14141, which gives the Attorney General authority to

bring a civil action for “pattern or practice” of unconstitutional conduct by law

enforcement or government officials with authority over juveniles. (Compl. at 9-10, 16.) 

Plaintiff describes the cause of action as one for “[d]iscriminatory [h]arassment, “violation

of due process,” “conspiracy to oppress,” “deprivation of rights,” and “interference &

intimidation.” (Id. at 16.) The basis of Plaintiff’s complaint is that he has attempted to

gain assistance from Defendant Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and he has “been

2:09-cv-13404-RHC-DAS Doc # 3 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 21
3

refused repeatedly in regards to every issue [he] submitted.” (Id. at 1.) The underlying

issue for which Plaintiff has sought assistance from Defendant is that Plaintiff was “the

victim of serious crime and [has], even unto this day, not been allowed any right a born

citizen of the U.S.A. has.” Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he “was drugged, shot and [his]

children, one unborn and the other Kemiya Lo Gray[,] were murdered.” (Id.) Plaintiff

states that he went to the hospital after the drugs wore off, but he did “did not

immediately contact a lawyer because of the sign at the hospital that read ‘patient

rights.’” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has contacted numerous government agencies, including

Defendant, regarding these events, yet has received “no real assistance.” (Id.) Plaintiff

demands five million dollars. (Id. at 16.) 

The court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is legally frivolous. Even if the federal

statutes upon which Plaintiff bases his complaint were applicable to the facts of the

present case, the enforcement of these statutes is vested in the Department of Justice,

not private individuals. Plaintiff has not identified any federal statute which entitles him to

relief; nor is the court aware of any such statute. Because Plaintiff’s complaint lacks “an

arguable basis in law,” the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Brown, 207 F.3d at 866. 

Also, to the extent that Plaintiff’s pro se complaint could be liberally construed to

be based on a cognizable legal theory, such as one for unlawful discrimination or a

violation of due process, the complaint fails to contain facts that demonstrate Plaintiff has

stated a claim for which he is entitled to relief. In both communications with the

Defendant that Plaintiff included in the complaint, Defendant stated that it would not take

further action because Plaintiff identified no issue in which Defendant had jurisdiction. 

2:09-cv-13404-RHC-DAS Doc # 3 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 22
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-13404.GRAY.1915.Dismissal.npk.wpd 4

(Compl. at 12-14.) Plaintiff has not alleged any facts demonstrating these denials were

in violation of the Constitution or federal statute. Because the complaint does not

contain “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), 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) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 

S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 9, 2009

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

this date, September 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13404-RHC-DAS Doc # 3 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 23