Daniels v. Sharpe

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-12279
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TODD D. DANIELS, SR.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-12279 v. Hon. F. Kay Behm JUDGE MONIQUE A. SHARPE, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Todd D. Daniels, Sr., filed a complaint, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for temporary restraining order on July 24, 2025. 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). Plaintiff’s claims relate to a proceeding in Michigan’s 36th District Court. Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to “serve the 36th District Court

and Judge Monique A. Sharpe with a Writ of Superintending Control” but neither the court administrator nor the judge’s clerk would accept the filing. He alleges that the 36th District Court “does not resemble a lawful court”

and that “these acts form part of a broader criminal enterprise maintained under color of law, wherein officials knowingly operate without lawful jurisdiction or authority, trafficking litigants into administrative proceedings without constitutional due process or consent.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks a

“writ of quo warranto,” writ of superintending control, and a writ of mandamus to direct the court clerk to perform ministerial duties. Plaintiff also moves for a temporary restraining order, requesting that this court stay all proceedings in state court, because he “cannot receive a fair hearing in the 36th District Court.” ECF No. 3.

“Younger abstention requires a federal court to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings.” O’Neill v. Coughlan, 511 F.3d 638, 643 (6th Cir.

2008); see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Courts look to three factors to determine whether they should abstain under Younger: “(1) there must be on-going state judicial proceedings; (2) those proceedings must implicate important state

interests; and (3) there must be an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges.” O’Neill, 511 F.3d at 643 (citation omitted). Abstention is required “if federal intervention would cause

even minimal interference” with “a state proceeding and the federal issue can be raised in the state proceeding.” J. P. v. DeSanti, 653 F.2d 1080, 1084 (6th Cir. 1981); see also Aaron v. O’Connor, 914 F.3d 1010, 1018 (6th Cir. 2019).

Here, the relief sought by Plaintiff, whether staying the proceedings or directing the service/filing of papers, would cause undue interference in the state court proceedings. Further, Plaintiff’s allegations, such as those

labeling the 36th District Court as a “criminal enterprise,” are largely frivolous. To the extent Plaintiff has nonfrivolous due process or other constitutional claims, they may be raised in the 36th District Court or on

appeal in state court. Under the circumstances, this court is obligated to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this matter under the Younger doctrine.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, the motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED, and the complaint is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge