Harpster v. State of Ohio et al
Filing
4
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 3 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the Complaint 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 Donald C. Nugent (C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LARRY HARPSTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OHIO,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:13 CV 1932
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Larry Harpster filed the above-captioned in forma pauperis civil complaint
against the State of Ohio. Mr. Harpster seeks an Order from this Court to relocate a fence and
permit the prosecution of “Joe White.” For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint is dismissed.
Background
The substance of the Complaint is not clear. The Court can discern that this is the second
complaint Mr. Harpster has filed in this Court in 2013. The first case, Harpster v. Gregory
Industries, Inc. et al, No.1:13cv0161 (N.D. Ohio filed Jan. 23, 2013)(Boyko, J.), was dismissed as
frivolous on May 13, 2013. He now seeks “justice by seeing that the fenace [sic] that was showed
in Harpster v. State of Ohio is moved so that I can go the barn without tearing my yard up as is
shown in the same case.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) He claims he has litigated this matter through the State
courts without success.1 To that end, he now asks whether this Court can “make the State Court of
Appeals . . .except [sic] my writ of habeas corpus in forma pauperis” and “issue a court order to
make Paul O’Reilly . . . press charges against Joe White for grand theft auto and land fourd [sic].”
(Doc. No. 1 at 3- 4.)
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 any claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a basis 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). For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e).
Failure to State a Claim
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). District courts are not required
to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from
sentence fragments. Id. 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 seeking out the strongest arguments and most
1
Although Mr. Harpster has listed his personal address in Polk, Ohio, which is located in
Ashland County, there is no record of any closed or pending civil action he has filed in the
Ashland County Courts.
2
successful strategies for a party.” Id. at 1278. Dismissal is appropriate “when the facts alleged rise
to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible ...”. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992).
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting Mr.
Harpster might have a valid federal claim against the State of Ohio.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Harpster's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3)
is granted and the Complaint 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.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Donald C. Nugent
DONALD C. NUGENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: October 28, 2013
2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the
trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”
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?