Opinion
No. 08-12504.
February 25, 2009
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's self-styled "Motion to Remove to Federal Court Due to Lack of Jurisdiction" [Docket #7]. He asks that the case be "removed" to the "United States Federal Court Western Division." In this motion, Plaintiff also appears to claim a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If that were the case, however, the complaint would be subject to dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
Plaintiff is, of course, is not represented by counsel. Therefore, his pleadings and arguments will not be held to the standard of a practicing attorney, but will be given a liberal construction. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004), citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2000) ( pro se pleadings are held to "an especially liberal standard"); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f) ("All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"). I will therefore construe this as a venue motion requesting that the case be transferred to the Western District of Michigan.
However, Plaintiff has not alleged any basis, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 or any other statute, to claim that venue properly lies in the Western District of Michigan.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion [Docket #7] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.