Alston v. Roberts et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order. The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 02/04/09. (M,M)

Alston v. Roberts et al

Doc. 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ANGELA ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES ROBERTS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2995 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

On December 24, 2008, plaintiff pro se Angela Alston filed this in forma pauperis action against Charles Roberts, Joseph Allen Roberts, Michael Mukasey, the U.S. Attorney, and "the Press." The complaint alleges, among other things, that Charles Roberts made false statements about Ms. Alston, prostituted and brainwashed her, and had her falsely arrested. Additionally, Charles Roberts

caused her to lose job opportunities and get locked up in a mental institution. For the reasons stated below, this action is

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a

Dockets.Justia.com

claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989);

Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain either

direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, District courts are not

Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988).

required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments.

Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278.

To do so would "require ...[the

courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would...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." Id.

Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain

A claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir. 1985). 2

1

allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might have a valid federal claim. 716 (6th Cir. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 1996)(court not required to accept summary

allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE February 4, 2009

3