# Maney v. State of Tenn

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · January 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10792320

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** January 30, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10792320

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DEBORAH MANEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 3:25-cv-00014
v. )
)
STATE OF TENN, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Deborah Maney, a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, filed this complaint
against “State of Tenn.” (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”, 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
II. INITIAL SCREENING STANDARD
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to
“lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (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.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e), which requires
sua sponte dismissal of an action upon certain determinations. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review her complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F. 3d 468, 470-71 (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, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972), “liberal construction . . . has limits.” Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th
Cir. 2001) (citing Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985). And pro se litigants are not
exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brown v. Matauszak, 415
F. App’x 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011).
III. ALLEGED FACTS
As best the Court can discern,1 the complaint alleges that “haters stole [her] life away.”
(Doc. No. 1 at PageID# 3). The complaint lists words and phrases such as “Holy Bible”,
“Heavenly the God holy or the Universe,” “my womb”, “Human Spirit,” and “my Special human
Body.” (Id.) In the “Relief” section of her complaint, Plaintiff lists mostly illegible words and
phrases, although the Court is able to decipher that she states that she is seeking “no open

violation” and “wants [her] life back.” (Id. at PageID# 5).
IV. SCREENING OF THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINT
After conducting the initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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. While a complaint need not contain “magic words,” it must contain
factual allegations and make plausible the claim for relief. Plaintiff’s complaint does not.
Moreover, “[t]his Court is not ‘required to create [Plaintiff]’s claims for [her],’ because ‘[t]o do
so would requir[e the] courts to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff and
would transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an

advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.’” Bell v.
Tennessee, No. 1:11-cv-14, 2012 WL 996560, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 22, 2012) (quoting
Thompson v. A.J. Rose Mfg. Co., 208 F.3d 215 (6th Cir. 2000) (bracket in original)).

1 Plaintiff’s complaint is so skeletal and nonsensical that it is impossible to distill her statements into coherent
narratives and causes of action.
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). 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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.

WAVERLY D. Cis JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10792320. Public record. Not legal advice.