Hall v. Gilbert et al
Filing
4
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's motion 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 11/4/13. (LC,S) re 1 , 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Kanonie Hall,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dan Gilbert, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:13 CV 1804
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
Pro se Plaintiff Kanonie Hall filed this action against Dan Gilbert, Bizdom, Quicken
Loans, Cody, and Katie Hawk. The form Complaint is entirely blank. Instead, Plaintiff
attaches a series of emails between himself and Bizdom employees. In the “Nature of Suit”
section of his Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiff checked off the boxes for “Truth in Lending,”
“Patent,” and “Banks and Banking,” and further indicates in the “Cause of Action” section that
he is suing Bizdom for “not helping with design, apps for technology.” He seeks monetary
relief. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons that
follow, that motion is granted and this action is dismissed.
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. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (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 of the allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 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, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009).
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.
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). Even given the most
liberal construction, the Complaint and its attachments do not contain allegations remotely
suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid federal claim, or even that there is a reasonable basis for
this Court’s jurisdiction. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not satisfy even the most relaxed
pleading standard as it either omits or fails to identify with any specificity, the jurisdictional
basis of Plaintiff’s claims, proper venue, any factual allegations, the nature of Plaintiff’s claims,
-2-
or the legal basis for those claims, and the relief requested. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This case
is therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir.
1999); see, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court
cases for the proposition that attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of
jurisdiction); see also, In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir. 1988) (recognizing
that federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 11/4/13
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?