Chelski v. State of Ohio

Filing 2

Memorandum of Opinion and Order. For the reasons set forth herein, 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 Christopher A. Boyko on 11/7/2013. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JAMES KEVIN CHELSKI,

Plaintiff,
v.

THE STATE OF OHIO,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:13 CV 2456

JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff James Kevin Chelski’s above-captioned in forma
pauperis Complaint. He names the State of Ohio as defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the
action is dismissed.
Background
The Complaint is comprised of twenty-five paragraphs. In each, Mr. Chelski either lists a
conclusory allegation or a vague accusation of corruption, wrongful prosecution, fraud, wrongful
termination and loss of liberty. He claims that when he “filed a civil suit 11cv67 to compensate me
for the damage done me by state employees the state employees working in the clerks office filed

the suit with out accepting or denieing [sic] my idegence [sic] plea so I dropped the case.”1 (Doc.
No. 1 at 4.) Mr. Chelski claims further that he was fired from “Pen Glo” without cause because the
State of Ohio wanted him to lose his job. He does not “wish to make the public aware of the
corruption only to remove it from the courts and compensate me my loss.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4.)
Finally, he asks the Court to place him in protective custody “while this case is tried.”
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
successful strategies for a party.” Id. at 1278. Dismissal is appropriate “when the facts alleged rise
1

Mr. Chelski does not disclose in what county he filed his state court action.
-2-

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.
Chelski might have a valid federal claim against the State of Ohio.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, 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/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: November 7, 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-