From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogers v. Mich. Circuit Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 1, 2016
Case No. 16-10136 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 16-10136

02-01-2016

SAMUEL ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT, Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Appearing pro se, Plaintiff Samuel Rogers filed a complaint on January 19, 2015, and an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. 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). The court "shall dismiss" the case if the court finds that it is "(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, "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff complains that he has been ordered to provide child support for a child that is not his. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over domestic matters such as child support. "The Supreme Court has held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over questions of divorce, alimony, or child custody." See Adkins v. Adkins, 2015 WL 6736187, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2015) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703-07 (1992)). Moreover, this court lacks jurisdiction to review a state court order or 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.'").

Because Plaintiff's complaint does not reveal a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that his complaint is DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara

United States District Judge Date: February 1, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, February 1, 2016, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager


Summaries of

Rogers v. Mich. Circuit Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 1, 2016
Case No. 16-10136 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 2016)
Case details for

Rogers v. Mich. Circuit Court

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 1, 2016

Citations

Case No. 16-10136 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 2016)