Smith v. Art Mucis Business and All Involved ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ANTHONY TYRONE SMITH, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-10471 v. Hon. George Caram Steeh ART MUCIS BUSINESS AND ALL INVOLVED, Defendant. ____________________________/ ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT Appearing pro se, Plaintiff Anthony Tyrone Smith filed a complaint on February 24, 2020, and an application to proceed without prepayment of fees on March 6, 2020. 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). 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). -1- The court Ashall dismiss@ the case if the court finds that it is A(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 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). In addition, “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). To the extent the court understands Plaintiff’s complaint, he appears to be claiming defamation of character and a claim regarding a deed that was adjudicated in state court. Plaintiff’s allegations are based in state law; he alleges no facts or law establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. This court does not have authority to review a state court judgment. See Rowe v. City of Detroit, 234 F.3d 1269, 2000 WL 1679474 (6th Cir. 2000) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal district courts generally lack jurisdiction to review and determine the validity of state court judgments, even in the face of allegations that “the state court’s action was unconstitutional.”). -2- Because the court finds no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. Dated: April 6, 2020 s/George Caram Steeh GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on April 6, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mal and also on Anthony Tyrone Smith, 17421 Saint Aubin St., Detroit, MI 48212. s/Brianna Sauve Deputy Clerk -3-