UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff, Case No. 26-cv-11442 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker
STAKE, LLC, SWEEPSTAKES LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants. ________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
On April 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Defendants Stake, LLC and Sweepstakes Limited.1 Plaintiff also filed a “Motion for Waiver of Fees and Court Costs,” which has been docketed as an application to proceed informa pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the following reasons, the Court is denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and requiring him to file an amended complaint.
1 It is unclear whether Plaintiff intends to sue others. In the Complaint, he included “et al.” after the named Defendants but mentions no other known or unknown individuals or entities in the pleading. This is just one of many elements of the Complaint that are unclear. See infra. While Plaintiff indicates in his “motion” that a litigant should not be required to pay the filing fee if doing so would sacrifice “the general necessities of
life,” he fails to provide information to show that paying the fee is beyond his means. He offers no information regarding his current income, assets, or expenses. To assess a litigant’s ability to pay the filing fee, the Court has a standard form on
which the filer must provide personal financial information and swear to its accuracy under penalty of perjury. See https://www.mied.uscourts.gov.IFP Application. Because Plaintiff’s filing is deficient, the Court is denying his motion and
requiring him to complete and file the required form, if he wishes to proceed without paying the filing fee. Plaintiff’s Complaint also is deficient, and so the Court is requiring him to file an amended pleading as well.
Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must set forth a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which federal-court jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim(s) showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief sought. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, that when accepted as true, “‘state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
555, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint need not
contain “detailed factual allegations,” but it must contain more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . ..” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint does not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Generally, a less stringent standard is applied when construing the allegations pleaded in a pro se complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21,
92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972). Even when held to a less stringent standard, however, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8. For example, Plaintiff fails to explain how Defendants engage in “deception, unlawful and unsafe operation of an online
digital gaming platform,” induce consumers to participate in an online gaming system, what material information they conceal, how they comprise data integrity, how his data was comprised, what finances were stolen from him, or how they were stolen. (See generally ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff does not indicate when any
misconduct occurred. He also does not specify what federal and state statutes he claims Defendants violated.2 The last element of a properly pled complaint is
2 Plaintiff mentions “RICO”—the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—but he fails to allege any facts to plausibly allege a violation of the statute: “(1) two or more predicate racketeering offenses, (2) the existence of an enterprise particularly important because, without it, the Court is unable to determine whether it has federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and only have “the authority to decide cases that the Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve.” Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008).
The basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction must appear “on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Loftis v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 342 F.3d 509, 514 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Generally, federal court jurisdiction is premised on “federal
question” or “diversity” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, respectively. Under § 1331, district courts have jurisdiction over “actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Thornton v. Sw. Detroit Hosp., 895 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th
affecting interstate commerce, (3) a connection between the racketeering offenses and the enterprise, and (4) injury [to his business or property].” Grow Mich., LLC v. LT Lender, LLC, 50 F.4th 587, 594 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 723 (6th Cir. 2006); Frank v. D’Ambrosi, 4 F.3d 1378, 1385 (6th Cir. 1993)). To plausibly allege “racketeering activity,” Plaintiff also must set forth facts establishing a violation of one of the federal statutes specified in the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B). Cir. 1990) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). Without factual allegations and identified claim(s), this Court
cannot determine whether Plaintiff plausibly pleads a violation of federal law. District courts have jurisdiction over civil actions under § 1332 only where “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff, Case No. 26-cv-11442 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker
STAKE, LLC, SWEEPSTAKES LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants. ________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
On April 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Defendants Stake, LLC and Sweepstakes Limited.1 Plaintiff also filed a “Motion for Waiver of Fees and Court Costs,” which has been docketed as an application to proceed informa pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the following reasons, the Court is denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and requiring him to file an amended complaint.
1 It is unclear whether Plaintiff intends to sue others. In the Complaint, he included “et al.” after the named Defendants but mentions no other known or unknown individuals or entities in the pleading. This is just one of many elements of the Complaint that are unclear. See infra. While Plaintiff indicates in his “motion” that a litigant should not be required to pay the filing fee if doing so would sacrifice “the general necessities of
life,” he fails to provide information to show that paying the fee is beyond his means. He offers no information regarding his current income, assets, or expenses. To assess a litigant’s ability to pay the filing fee, the Court has a standard form on
which the filer must provide personal financial information and swear to its accuracy under penalty of perjury. See https://www.mied.uscourts.gov.IFP Application. Because Plaintiff’s filing is deficient, the Court is denying his motion and
requiring him to complete and file the required form, if he wishes to proceed without paying the filing fee. Plaintiff’s Complaint also is deficient, and so the Court is requiring him to file an amended pleading as well.
Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must set forth a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which federal-court jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim(s) showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief sought. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, that when accepted as true, “‘state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
555, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint need not
contain “detailed factual allegations,” but it must contain more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . ..” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint does not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Generally, a less stringent standard is applied when construing the allegations pleaded in a pro se complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21,
92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972). Even when held to a less stringent standard, however, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8. For example, Plaintiff fails to explain how Defendants engage in “deception, unlawful and unsafe operation of an online
digital gaming platform,” induce consumers to participate in an online gaming system, what material information they conceal, how they comprise data integrity, how his data was comprised, what finances were stolen from him, or how they were stolen. (See generally ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff does not indicate when any
misconduct occurred. He also does not specify what federal and state statutes he claims Defendants violated.2 The last element of a properly pled complaint is
2 Plaintiff mentions “RICO”—the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—but he fails to allege any facts to plausibly allege a violation of the statute: “(1) two or more predicate racketeering offenses, (2) the existence of an enterprise particularly important because, without it, the Court is unable to determine whether it has federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and only have “the authority to decide cases that the Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve.” Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008).
The basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction must appear “on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Loftis v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 342 F.3d 509, 514 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Generally, federal court jurisdiction is premised on “federal
question” or “diversity” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, respectively. Under § 1331, district courts have jurisdiction over “actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Thornton v. Sw. Detroit Hosp., 895 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th
affecting interstate commerce, (3) a connection between the racketeering offenses and the enterprise, and (4) injury [to his business or property].” Grow Mich., LLC v. LT Lender, LLC, 50 F.4th 587, 594 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 723 (6th Cir. 2006); Frank v. D’Ambrosi, 4 F.3d 1378, 1385 (6th Cir. 1993)). To plausibly allege “racketeering activity,” Plaintiff also must set forth facts establishing a violation of one of the federal statutes specified in the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B). Cir. 1990) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). Without factual allegations and identified claim(s), this Court
cannot determine whether Plaintiff plausibly pleads a violation of federal law. District courts have jurisdiction over civil actions under § 1332 only where “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between
citizens of different States . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “Diversity of citizenship . . . exists only when no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same state.” Curry v. U.S. Bulk Transp., Inc., 462 F.3d 536, 540 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff fails to identify the citizenship of the parties.
The only amount stated in his Complaint ($48,500.00) is below the threshold for establishing diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To proceed IFP, Plaintiff must complete and file the required IFP application within fourteen (14) days of this Opinion and Order. Failure to file a completed and signed form, or to pay the filing fee, by the deadline
will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of this Opinion and Order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in compliance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8 and this Opinion and Order. The failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline, or the filing of an amendment that still fails to satisfy Rule 8, may result in this action being dismissed without prejudice.3
SO ORDERED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: May 5, 2026
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, May 5, 2026, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan Case Manager
3 The Court advises Plaintiff that the District’s website contains information useful to pro se parties: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/. Among the resources available is the University of Detroit Mercy Law School Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic and the District’s Pro Se Case Administrator.