White v. Lorain County MR/DD et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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. Signed by Judge Solomon. (D,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JACQUELINE M. WHITE,
Plaintiff
v.
LORAIN COUNTY MRDD, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1: 14 CV 2681

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff Jacqueline M. White filed this pro se action against various defendants, including
a county family service agency, the “Lorain County MR/DD.” She has filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) Her application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,
but her complaint is dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
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 at any time under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) if it is frivolous or
malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when
it lacks “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 470-71 (holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals for failure
to state a claim under §1915(e)(2)(B)). The court must construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded allegations as true, and determine whether the
plaintiff’s allegations present plausible claims. Although a complaint need not contain “detailed”
factual allegations, its “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of
his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Rather, the plaintiff’s pleading must contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
677-78.
A pro se litigant is not held to the same standard as a lawyer; however, she still must set forth
factual allegations sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of her claims and the grounds on which
they rest, and the court is not required to conjure up allegations on the plaintiff’s behalf. See Erwin
v. Edwards, 22 Fed. App’x 579, 2001 WL 1556573 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001).
Analysis
Even under the most liberal construction, the plaintiff’s complaint is simply insufficient to
meet basic pleading requirements or state any plausible claim for relief. The sum total of plaintiff’s
allegations is simply a list of the following grievances: “discrimination based on age, race, and
mental disability”; “denial of service”; “withholding of information/resources”; “failure to
consistently comply with State of Ohio”; “terminating of services”; “medical neglect”; and
“improper medical care.” (See Doc. No. 1.) The plaintiff sets forth no supporting factual allegations
or particulars whatsoever in support of these listed grievances. Not only is her complaint completely

2

devoid of factual allegations identifying the conduct or events she purports to challenge, it identifies
no specific individuals involved in the purported challenged conduct; it does not explain how the
entities named as defendants were involved; it sets forth no specific law or statute of any kind
underlying her grievances; and it requests no specific relief of any nature from the Court. The
plaintiff simply asserts in her complaint, after listing the above-stated grievances, “see attached
documents.” The documents attached to the plaintiff’s complaint appear to pertain to an appeal she
pursued of a decision by the Lorain County Department of Job and Family Services regarding her
nephew, but they do not in any way on their face suggest any basis for the grievances the plaintiff
lists. They do not in any way suggest the plaintiff was discriminated against for any reason,
including age, race, or mental disability.
The conclusory sentence fragments set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint are simply
insufficient to raise a right to relief for unlawful discrimination, or any other conduct the plaintiff
lists in her complaint, above the speculative level. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to assert a
plausible claim upon which relief may be granted and the Court must dismiss her complaint.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s complaint in this matter is hereby dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). 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/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

January 16, 2015

3