Jackson v. 19 Action News

Filing 3

Memorandum of Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed 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. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 1/30/2012. (M,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLIFFORD D. JACKSON, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
19 ACTION NEWS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 2700
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On December 13, 2011, Plaintiff pro se Clifford D. Jackson, III, an inmate at the Cuyahoga
County Jail filed this in forma pauperis action against 19 Action News, a Cleveland television
broadcast. Plaintiff alleges Defendant broadcasted that he broke into a house at 7200 Ivy, and that
this statement was defamatory. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and an order
prohibiting Defendant from harassing him. 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 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).
This action lacks an arguable basis in law. There are no facts set forth in the Complaint

suggesting a proper basis for this Court's jurisdiction, as the parties are both located in Ohio and
no federal statute is implicated by Plaintiff's claim. This action is therefore appropriately subject
to summary dismissal. Lowe v. Hustetler, No. 89-5996, 1990 WL 66822 (6th Cir. May 21, 1990).
Accordingly, 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
January 30, 2012

2