UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD JAMES CROMER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-12881

v. Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge DANA NESSELL, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1) SUA SPONTE FOR FAILING TO CORRECT FILING DEFICIENCIES

Plaintiff Edward James Cromer, proceeding pro se, brought this suit on September 11, 2025, against 12 Defendants for allegedly “killing black men under a fake misnomer of the meaning of subject matter jurisdiction.” ECF No. 1. He also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. But on September 22, 2025, this Court denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis because Cromer—who is currently incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility—had at least three other lawsuits dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and he raised no allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury to invoke an exception to this “three-strikes” rule under

(g). See ECF No. 5. In that order, this Court directed Cromer to pay the civil action filing fees on or before October 21, 2025. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(d). Otherwise, he was informed that his case would be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 5 at PageID.146.

To date, Cromer has not paid the fees. Instead, on October 6, 2025, he filed a letter in which he quotes various United States Supreme Court cases and reiterates that he is exempt from federal jurisdiction. ECF No. 6. He also filed a certificate of

his prisoner’s account on October 27, 2025. ECF No. 7. But Cromer is not required to pay filing fee because he failed to show proof of indigency. Instead, he must pay the fee because he has exceeded the number of cases that have been dismissed for frivolity under

(g). See ECF No.

5. Because Cromer has not paid the fee, this Court must presume he is proceeding without prepayment, must assess the whole fee, and must dismiss the

case for failure to prosecute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,

(2007). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See

(b), (e)(2)(A); FED. R.

CIV. P. 41(b). Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is DENIED leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See

(a)(3). This final order closes the above-captioned case. /s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge

Dated: November 18, 2025