Smith v. Divison of Child Support et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 5/25/2017 - This action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff-pro se, Defendants (DAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
JAMES DALLAS SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-275-DJH

DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT et al.,

Defendants.
* * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff James Dallas Smith filed this pro se civil action on a general complaint form.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons that follow,
the Court will dismiss this action.
I.
Plaintiff names the “Division of Child Support,” the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and
Keisha LeBlanc as Defendants in this action. On the complaint form, he indicates that the basis
for federal question jurisdiction is “statues of law Chpt. 246, Section 1 Reservation of Right
UCC 1-308 Article 1 Sec I paragraphs 42 USC USCFR 303.101.” He then references an
attachment which reads as follows: “Separation of Powers Doctrine; Article III, Sec VI,
Paragraph I; Article I Sec. 8; Art. I Sec. II paragraph II; Amendment 8 of the Bill of Rights;
Article 1, Sec. 9, paragraph 3; 18 USC chpt. 13 § 241-242; Deparvation of Rights, Bill of Rights;
28 USC 1602-1611; Acts of Collusion.”
In the Statement of Claims section, Plaintiff writes “See Attachments.” On the first
attached page, Plaintiff writes:

Commonwealth of Kentucky . . . Violation of Due Process 2/10/2017; Equal
Protection of law 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 13 7/14/2016 2/13/2017 2/27/2017
3/13/2017 3/27/2017 4/10/2017 4/17/2017 5/2/2017 . . . Deparvation of Rights
Same Dates under Color of Law, Separations of powers Doctrine. False
Documents Mailed to my Domicile Violation of Amendment 8 of the Bill of
Right & 13th Chapter of UCC title 18 § 241-242 45 CFR 303.101 Omin; Bus
Reconiliation Act 42 USC 408 13th Amendment 42 USC 1994 18 USC 1581
AND 18 USC 1589.
On the second attached page, Plaintiff writes:
Jefferson County Division of Child Support . . . Trying to make me a customer of
child support, which I have summit verbal and written request that services should
end due to Fraud & Equal Protection under the Law, Violations of Amendments
1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, Amendment 8 of the Bill of Rights Perjury Deparvation of
Rights and the compelling of the Social Security Number US CFR 303.101 . . .
Court Dates 7/14/2016 2/10/2017 2/13/1017 2/29/2017 3/13/2017 3/27/2017
4/10/2017 4/17/2017 5/2/2017 . . . Calls Compelling SSN # of me . . . Wendy –
Jefferson County Child Support 9:07 10/21/2016; Erica Miler 9:10 am; Tee, Brian
CSO 2/14/2017 9:38; Stan Duffy 8:32 am 12/12/2016; 9:30 2/14/2017 Natasha …
Written Request to Dismiss or terminate orders of Child Support 2-28-17 7-14-16
2-10-17 2-13-17 2-27-17 3-13-17 2-27-17 4-10-17 4-17-17 5-2-17.
On the third attached page, Plaintiff writes:
Keisha M. LeBlanc . . . Gave authorization to put me in a contract that I did not
concent to. Violated 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights Violation of Other
Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, UCC Title 18 Chapter 13 § 241-242.
Deparvation of rights under Color of Law . . . Summer of 1999 and another child
2001 without my concent. Up to date.
Finally, in the Relief section of the complaint form, Plaintiff references one final attached
page which states as follows:
All Children Support Orders and Documents Rescinded All Matters pertaining to
arrages to cease . . . Depravation of Rights; Loss of Jobs; Homelessness; No
automobile; Reputation Destroyed; Body Harm; Threats, intimidation; Kidnapped
held for Ransom; Ransom Held; $ 550,000.00; 250,000.00 for each defense by
special appearance locked up while injured no meds given 37 million pain &
suffering . . . 1) Every two weeks gotta go to Court unable to work. Court make
Dr. appointment fear of bench warrant unlawful imprisonment, threat, duress,
corhearsion 15 million . . . These Crimes committed against me.

2

II.
Upon review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a district court must dismiss a case at any time if
it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state 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. 544,
570 (2007)). “A 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. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). “But the district
court need not accept a ‘bare assertion of legal conclusions.’” Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting
Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)). “A pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), “[o]ur duty to be ‘less stringent’
with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations.” McDonald v. Hall,

3

610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted). And this Court is not required to create a
claim for Plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975).
To command otherwise would require the Court “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a
pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to
the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful
strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
In light of this standard, the Court finds that the facts alleged in the complaint fail to state
a discernable claim upon relief may be granted. Simply put, the complaint “does contain
sufficient factual matter,” which if accepted as true, ‘state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this action will be dismissed by separate Order.
Date:

May 25, 2017

David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4415.011

4