Pitts v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Andrew Lamar Pitts,
Plaintiff,
v.
Progressive Michigan Insurance
Company,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Case No. 25-cv-13380
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge David R. Grand
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND ORDER
FOR PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS
Plaintiff Andrew Lamar Pitts filed a complaint against Defendant
Progressive Michigan Insurance Company in which he alleges breach of
contract, or in the alternative, unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1.) The
complaint is not signed by Plaintiff, who is self-represented, and it does
not establish that subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). In addition, Plaintiff also submitted an Application to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (in forma pauperis) that is completely
blank except for his signature and date.
Case 5:25-cv-13380-JEL-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 5

2
I. Order Striking Plaintiff’s Complaint
As noted, Plaintiff did not sign the complaint. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(a) provides in relevant part that “[e]very pleading, written
motion, and other paper must be signed by . . . a party personally if the
party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The complaint is unsigned
and therefore does not comply with the signature requirement of Rule
11(a). Accordingly, the complaint is stricken. Plaintiff may refile a
complaint that contains his handwritten signature. Any complaint
Plaintiff decides to file must also address the following deficiency
regarding jurisdiction.
One way in which a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction is
based on diversity jurisdiction. See Miller v. Bruenger, 949 F.3d 986, 990
(6th Cir. 2020). Federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction in civil
cases “where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . . . citizens of
different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A review of the complaint shows
that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to establish subject matter
jurisdiction under § 1332(a). Here, Plaintiff has failed to properly allege
Defendant’s citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is
Case 5:25-cv-13380-JEL-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 5

3
deemed a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state
where it maintains its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1). The complaint alleges that Defendant is “an Ohio corporation”
with “its principal place of business outside Michigan.” (ECF No. 1,
PageID.2, ¶6; PageID.1, ¶3.) Plaintiff does not specify the state where
Defendant’s principal place of business is located. Accordingly, the Court
lacks sufficient information to determine Defendant’s citizenship and
therefore whether subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship exists. Plaintiff must properly allege Defendant’s citizenship
in any future complaint he chooses to file. Failure to establish jurisdiction
may result in dismissal of the action.
II. Order to Submit Application to Proceed without
Prepaying Fees or Costs
Plaintiff submitted a blank application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Federal courts “may authorize the commencement
. . . of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees . . .
by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that
the person is unable to pay such fees.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Inadequate
completion of an application to proceed in forma pauperis is grounds for
denial of that application in the Eastern District of Michigan. See Shaw
Case 5:25-cv-13380-JEL-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 5

4
v. Oakland Cnty. Friend of the Ct., No. 20-12492, 2020 WL 7024912, at
*3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2020).
Here, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is empty
except for Plaintiff’s name, his signature, and the date it was
presumptively signed. Plaintiff has not provided any of the information
requested on the form. (ECF No. 2, PageID.7–8.) Without this
information, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is unable to
pay the applicable filing fee. As a result, Plaintiff must file a completed
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs.
For reasons stated above, the Court orders:
(1) The complaint (ECF No. 1) is STRICKEN and not part of the
record.
(2) If Plaintiff would like this case to proceed, he must submit a
complaint that includes his handwritten signature and that properly
alleges Defendant’s citizenship (state of incorporation and principal place
of business) by December 1, 2025.
(3) If Plaintiff would like the Court to consider his Application to
Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs he must submit a complete
Case 5:25-cv-13380-JEL-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 5

5
application by December 1, 2025. In his submission he must answer
each question that appears in the application.
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the case may be
dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 41.2 and for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 3, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 3, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Case 5:25-cv-13380-JEL-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 5