Barksdale v. United States of America

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing this action under Section 1915(e). Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, re 1 2 . Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 05/20/2011. (M,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CHRISTOPHER BARKSDALE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 691
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On April 7, 2011, Plaintiff pro se Christopher Barksdale filed this in forma pauperis
action against the United States of America. The body of the Complaint states the defendants are
“Justices of the United States Supreme court, and United States Six Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Complaint, p.6. While the Complaint is unclear, Plaintiff appears to object to Defendants’
interpretation of the National Labor Management Relations Act.
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 claim upon which relief
can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. 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).
Judicial officers are generally absolutely immune from civil suits for money damages.
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991); Barnes v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111, 1115 (6th Cir. 1997).
This far-reaching protection is needed to ensure that the independent and impartial exercise of
judgment is not impaired by the exposure of potential damages. Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1115. For this
reason, absolute immunity is overcome only in two situations: (1) when the conduct alleged is not
performed in the judge’s judicial capacity; or (2) when the conduct alleged, although judicial in

nature, is taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12; Barnes, 105 F.3d
at 1116. Plaintiff alleges no facts to show that either of these criteria has been met in this case.
Further, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require
“detailed

factual

allegations,”

but

it

demands

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id.

more

than

an

unadorned,

A pleading that offers “labels and

conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor
does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Id. 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. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are
“merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief other than damages,

the Complaint does not set forth a coherent claim for relief under the Iqbal standard..
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
May 20, 2011

2