Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180227_0000407.WMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:18:44+00:00

Document:
HON. JANET T. NEFF JUDGE.
Plaintiff initiated this matter on February 16, 2018, against Kent County. Having granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed as a pauper, the Court has conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having conducted this initial review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right for relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007).
Id. at 1949-50 (internal citations omitted).
When evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider the complaint and any exhibits attached thereto, public records, and items appearing in the record of the case. See Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008); see also, Continental Identification Products, Inc. v. EnterMarket, Corp., 2008 WL 51610 at *1, n.1 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 2, 2008) (“an exhibit to a pleading is considered part of the pleading” and “the Court may properly consider the exhibits. . .in determining whether the complaint fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted without converting the motion to a Rule 56 motion”); Stringfield v. Graham, 212 Fed.Appx. 530, 535 (6th Cir. 2007) (documents “attached to and cited by” the complaint are “considered parts thereof under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c)”).
Plaintiff's filing is threadbare and does not allege any facts that would state a claim. It appears that at some future date Ms. Dean intends to file a complaint for an EEOC violation against Kent County. However, at this juncture, she would like an extension of time to find an attorney.
Evaluated pursuant to the aforementioned standard, the Court concludes that any facts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, even if accepted as true, fail to rise to the standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in this court. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice.
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. The Court must also decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). Good faith is judged objectively, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1961), and an appeal is not taken in good faith if the issue presented is frivolous, defined as lacking an arguable basis either in fact or law. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001). For the same reasons that the undersigned recommends dismissal of the action, the undersigned discerns no good faith basis for an appeal and recommends that, should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11.

References: § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915