Al-Shara v. United States Government

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-11923
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MUTAZ MUJEED AL-SHARA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-11923 v. Hon. F. Kay Behm THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On June 24, 2025, Plaintiff Mutaz Mujeed Al-Shara filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint against the United States Government and Corinne Niosi, Brian M. Boynton, Matthew Lewis, and Patricia McCarthy, who are alleged to be attorneys representing the government. The court finds Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis to be facially sufficient and, therefore, grants Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 262 (6th Cir. 1990). Once a court grants a plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e). The court Ashall dismiss@ the case if the court finds that it is A(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.@

28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). In addition, “a district court may, at any time, dismiss sua sponte a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the

allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain Aa short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.@ Although this standard does not require Adetailed factual allegations,@ it does require more than Alabels and conclusions@ or Aa formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff must allege facts that, if accepted as true, are sufficient Ato raise a right to relief above the speculative level@ and to Astate a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Id. at 570. See also

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). AA claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.@ Id. at 678. Although pro se complaints are liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, pro se litigants must nonetheless comply with the basic pleading

requirements of Rule 8. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff alleges that he has been “subjected to a sustained campaign

of harassment, surveillance, and institutional abuse by unknown female offenders who have impersonated federal personnel, healthcare providers, and private sector employees.” ECF No. 1 at PageID.1. He asserts that his phone calls and emails to 911 and private businesses have been

intercepted by persons posing as federal authorities; he has been surveilled in public; his phone contacts have been read aloud by the IRS; he has “repeatedly and wrongfully been committed to mental institutions for

extended periods”; he has been “subject to lethal cyberattacks, human trafficking and unlawful deaths, with no forensic analysis or accountability”; he has been harassed by “Chinese civilian spies” at his residence; his reports to police or security have been denied; and his reports to federal

officials regarding espionage, harassment, and national security threats have been ignored. ECF No. 1 at PageID.2-4. Plaintiff alleges various grounds for relief, including violations of the

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Privacy Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. His complaint contains vague and implausible allegations that do not explain how the named defendants engaged in wrongdoing, violated the listed statutes or Constitution, or are

otherwise responsible for the events or incidents about which he complains. A complaint must allege facts establishing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, which requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Here, Plaintiff

has presented “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement,” which is insufficient. Id. (cleaned up; citation omitted). Further, the allegations in the complaint lack facial plausibility and must be dismissed

for that reason as well. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge