The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DEBORAH MANEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 3:25-cv-01128
v. )
) Judge Trauger
GANGS, et al., ) Magistrate Judge Frensley
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Deborah Maney, a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, filed this complaint
against “Gangs”, “Unknown Haters Racism”, and “The Holy Bible.” (Doc. No. 1).
I. FILING FEE
Plaintiff submitted an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP
Application”). (Doc. No. 2). The Court may authorize a person to file a civil suit without paying
the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915 is intended to insure that indigent persons have
equal access to the judicial system by allowing them to proceed without having to advance the fees
and costs associated with litigation. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Adkins v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342 (1948). Pauper status does not require absolute
destitution. Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339; Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 21 F.
App’x 239, 240 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the relevant question is “whether the court costs can be
paid without undue hardship.” Foster, 21 F. App’x at 240. Proceeding in forma pauperis is a
privilege, not a right, and “[t]he decision whether to permit a litigant to proceed [in forma pauperis]
is within the Court’s discretion.” Id.
According to Plaintiff’s IFP Application, her monthly income totals $967 from
Supplemental Social Security payments, she is homeless and “saving [for an] apartment,” her
monthly expenses total $750, and she has $1600 in a bank account. (Id. at 1-5). 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). A pro se complaint must still “contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Barnett v.
Luttrell, 414 F. App’x 784, 786 (6th Cir. 2011). District courts “have no obligation to act as counsel
or paralegal” to pro se litigants. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). Nor are they “required
to create” a pro se litigant’s claim for him or her. Payne v. Secretary of Treasury, 73 F. App’x 836,
837 (6th Cir. 2003).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, “for over 20 years” Plaintiff has
been “pursued” by “Haters all due to Jealousy.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4). Unidentified “groups” swapped
Plaintiff’s daughter at birth at Summit Hospital in 1996. They “cut [Plaintiff’s] human spirit and
soul out.” (Id.) “They have been hunting [Plaintiff] since [she] was born after finding out who
[she] was.” (Id.) “Because of [Plaintiff’s] Holy Bible, attempted murder [Plaintiff] on several
accounts saying [she’s] from a different planet. [Plaintiff’s] heavenly father is Holy Bible.
[Plaintiff is] a stigma.” (Id. at 3).
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 cannot survive screening under Section 1915(e)(2).
1 It is difficult to distill Plaintiff’s handwritten statements into coherent narratives and causes of
action.
Plaintiffs claims are subject to dismissal as frivolous or delusional. Plaintiffs allegations
strain credulity. The complaint fails to state any federal claims upon which relief can be granted.
V. CONCLUSION
As explained above, Plaintiffs in forma pauperis complaint is subject to dismissal 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 sco ORDERED. Mhil @ 7
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge