Wright v. DeJoy ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ELIZABETH WRIGHT, Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-10871 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General of the United States, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL In the original Complaint in this pro se action, Plaintiff Elizabeth Wright alleged that Defendant Louis DeJoy wrongly denied her application for disability retirement. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On May 10, 2021, Wright applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Application, ECF No. 6.) On May 18, 2021, this Court granted Wright’s application. (See Order, ECF No. 8.) By separate Order today, the Court dismissed Wright’s claims against Dejoy. On August 31, 2021, Wright filed an Amended Complaint. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 17.) In her Amended Complaint, Wright added the “U.S. Attorney’s Office” in Detroit, Michigan (the “USAO”), and the “U.S. Attorney General/U.S. Dept. of Justice” (the “USAG”) as co-defendants. (See id.) The Amended Complaint did not contain any allegations against the USAO or the USAG. (See id.) Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint seeking redress against government entities, officers, and employees which it finds to be frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court concludes sua sponte that Wright’s claims against the USAO and the USAG are frivolous and must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. As noted above, the Amended Complaint, which added these parties, did not contain any factual or legal allegations against either of them. Indeed, beyond listing them as Defendants, the Amended Complaint did not mention them at all. The Court therefore finds they lack any basis in law or in fact and must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Wright’s claims against the USAO and the USAG (ECF No. 17). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 9, 2021 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 9, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764