UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

SYLVIA MINES-JONES, 2:19-CV-12400-TGB

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND CADILLAC SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Sylvia Mines-Jones’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff indicates that she has no source of income, has no savings, and relies on Section 8 housing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. However, because the Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the Court will DISMISS the Complaint. When a person seeks to proceed in court without prepayment of fees (in forma pauperis), the Court must determine whether the action is “frivolous” or “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). If so, the Court must dismiss the Complaint.

An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact.” Nietzke v. Williams,

(1990). Plaintiff’s Complaint is a rambling string of disjointed, convoluted, and nonsensical statements ranging from “[t]he global economic summit did a savage domination,” and “biochemical warfare,” to “Elsa Frozen Owner Hallmark Industries anatomy physiology murder plot” and “counterfeiting bio-tech pirating murder meters.” ECF No. 1. The Court cannot even begin to discern what Plaintiff is alleging or why she is seeking upwards of $600 million from Cadillac. Plaintiff’s Complaint has

no comprehensible basis in law or fact. It therefore fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted and is frivolous. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’ application to proceed in forma pauperis but DISMISSES the Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 30, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG United States District Judge