Mays v. Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and this action is dismissed. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28:1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Dan Aaron Polster (C,KA)

Mays v. Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority

Doc. 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO JUAN AHMAD MAYS, Plaintiff, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:09 CV 573 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

On March 17, 2009, plaintiff pro se Juan Ahmad Mays filed this in forma pauperis action against the Cuyahoga County

Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA).1

While the complaint is

somewhat unclear, plaintiff appears to be alleging that CMHA has poor management practices, and that some tenants have been

improperly evicted for non-payment of rent.

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

The complaint also purports to be filed on behalf of Tenants Rights Association of Cleveland, Inc. Plaintiff may only file pro se on his own behalf, however. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

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 claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.2 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

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

2

seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id.

Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain 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/Dan Aaron Polster 3/23/09 DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3