UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHAN ELDERIDGE JACOBS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-cv-12471 Honorable Linda V. Parker DETROIT POLICE STATION,

Defendant. ____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

On August 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed this pro se lawsuit against Defendant (ECF No. 1) and an application to procced in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). The Court is granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP. However, the Complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to

(e)(2). Therefore, the Court is summarily dismissing the Complaint. District courts are required by statute to dismiss an action filed IFP if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.

(e)(2); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 2007). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” or describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v.

Hernandez,

(1992). A plaintiff must allege facts “sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,’ and to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc.,

(6th

Cir. 2009) (quoting Bett Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards” than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). Nevertheless, even under this liberal standard, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to summary dismissal. As

another judge in this District recently held in a duplicative action Plaintiff filed against Defendant, his civil rights claim,1 which arises from an incident on August 16, 2001, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Op. & Order, Jacob

v. Detroit Police Station, No. 25-cv-12472 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2025), ECF No. 5. Moreover, the “Detroit Police Station,” which the Court construes Plaintiff to mean the Detroit Police Department, is not an entity amenable to suit under § 1983. See Boykin v. Van Buren Twp.,

, 450 (6th Cir. 2007); Hirth v. Royal Oak

1 Plaintiff filed a “motion” in the current matter on August 21, 2025, in which he appears to state that he did not intend to file a civil lawsuit but a complaint with the Department of Justice. (See ECF No. 6.) On that basis, the Court had intended to deem the action as voluntarily dismissed—or at least show cause Plaintiff for why it should not be dismissed. His filing of a second repeat lawsuit, however, suggested to the Court that he in fact intends to pursue a civil rights claim against Defendant here. Police Dep’t, No. 23-cv-12708,

, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2024) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 u.S. 658, 690 (2018)).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is summarily dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any appeal of this decision could not be taken in good faith and, therefore, leave to proceed IFP on any appeal is DENIED.

(a)(3). s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 16, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 16, 2025, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail.

s/Aaron Flanigan Case Manager