IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

DEBORAH MANEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:24-cv-01472 v. ) ) Judge Trauger DEMONIC RACIST ) Magistrate Judge Frensley DISCRIMINATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Deborah Maney, a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, filed this complaint against “Demonic Racist Discrimination.” (Doc. No. 1). I. FILING FEE Plaintiff submitted an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Application”). (Doc. No. 2). According to Plaintiff’s IFP Application, her monthly income totals $923 from Supplemental Social Security payments, she has no assets of any kind other than an “inheritance of 100, 100, 100, 100 trillions of dollars stolen from [her] accounts”, her monthly expenses total over $1000, and she does not expect any major changes to her monthly income or expenses in the next 12 months (Id.) Plaintiff did not provide a residential address. It appears that Plaintiff may be unhoused. Because her IFP Application reflects that she lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the full filing fee without undue hardship, the IFP Application (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk therefore is DIRECTED to file the complaint in forma pauperis.

(a). II. INITIAL SCREENING STANDARD Congress enacted

, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to “lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). In doing so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’”

at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e), which requires sua sponte dismissal of an action upon certain determinations.

(e)(2)(B). Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review her complaint pursuant to

(e). Benson v. O’Brian,

(6th Cir. 1999). Under § 1915(e), the Court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2); see also Hill v. Lappin,

(6th Cir. 2010). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain: (1) a

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although allegations in a pro se complaint are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner,

(1972), “liberal construction . . . has limits.” Erwin v. Edwards,

(6th Cir. 2001) (citing Franklin v. Rose,

(6th Cir. 1985). And pro se litigants are not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brown v. Matauszak,

(6th Cir. 2011). III. ALLEGED FACTS As best the Court can discern,1 the complaint alleges that, “since Obama was President of the United States,” unidentified individuals discriminated against Plaintiff and a “demon” is “hunt[ing] her.” (Doc. No. 1 at PageID# 3-4). The complaint lists words and phrases such as “body double,” “holding hostage,” “corpse,” “mind control”, “spirit shadows”, and “embedded in me.” (Id. at PageID# 4). In the “Relief” section of her complaint, Plaintiff lists racist and

sexual terms and states that she is seeking “no open violation.” (Id at PageID# 5). IV. SCREENING OF THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINT After conducting the initial screening pursuant to

(e)(2), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8 and cannot survive screening under Section 1915(e)(2). The allegations set forth in the complaint are frivolous and/or delusional. Additionally, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. “[F]ederal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte.” Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd.,

(6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). There are two basic types of subject-matter jurisdiction: federal-

question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

, 1332. A plaintiff properly invokes federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 when he pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006) (citation omitted). A plaintiff invokes diversity of citizenship jurisdiction when he presents a claim between parties who are citizens of different states and the value of that claim exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000.

Plaintiff’s handwritten complaints are so skeletal and nonsensical that it is difficult to distill her statements into coherent narratives and causes of action. 1332(a). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing Jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). When a plaintiff fails to establish jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the case without prejudice. Ernst v. Rising,

(6th Cir. 2005); Revere v. Wilmington Fin.,

, 937 (6th Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff has not established subject-matter jurisdiction. She represents that Defendant and Plaintiff are residents of Tennessee (see Doc. No at PageID# 2); thus, diversity of citizenship is not alleged. Neither has Plaintiff identified a federal question, nor can the Court discern one. V. CONCLUSION As explained above, Plaintiffs in forma pauperis complaint is subject to dismissal as frivolous and delusional under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Additionally, the complaint fails to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Because an appeal would not be taken in good faith, Plaintiff is not certified to pursue an appeal from this judgment in forma pauperis.

(a)(3). This is the final Order denying all relief in this case. The Clerk SHALL enter judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b). It is so ORDERED. ff United States District Judge