Bogard v. Bill of Vital Statistics Columbus, Ohio

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 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 Patricia A. Gaughan on 1/10/12. (LC,S) re 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Ulysses C. Bogard,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bill of Vital Statistics,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 2625
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Ulysses C. Bogard filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against “Bill
of Vital Statistics Columbus, Ohio” (ECF No. 1). In the complaint, plaintiff claims his
constitutional rights were violated. He seeks “Ninety Nine Point Nine Zillion Dollars in
damages.” (ECF No. 1 at 1).
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That Application is
granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint is very brief. It states in its entirety:
The defendant was in violation of constitutional rights in regard to
the birth certificate of the plaintiff. The following constitutional
rights were violated: VIII excessive cruel and unusual punishment
was inflicted, IV, VII right to trial by jury, and V provisions
concerning prosecution. Civil rights were also violated as well as

rights to the plaintiff as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
All of the plaintiff’s losses were, are, and will be due solely to and
by reason of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant.
(ECF No. 1 at 1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 in forma pauperis 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.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). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). 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 factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right
to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint

1

An in forma pauperis 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-

are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual
allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In
reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff does not provide a factual basis for his claims. He cites several Constitutional
Amendments; however, he does not plead any facts to reasonably suggest how these
Amendments may have been violated by this defendant. Principles requiring generous
construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594
(6th Cir. 1989); 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, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure
up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence
fragments. Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. Plaintiff’s complaint is comprised entirely of legal
conclusions. This is not sufficient to meet the basic federal notice pleading requirements.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this
action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

-3-

§1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 1/10/12

-4-