Ringel v. Social Security Administration

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 1/28/15. (LC,S) re 1 , 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

ALLEN RINGEL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Office )
of Public Inquiries,
)
)
Defendant.
)

CASE NO. 1:14 CV 2785
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff pro se Allen Ringel filed this in forma pauperis action
against the Social Security Administration, Office of Public Inquiries. Plaintiff’s brief
Complaint requests that his mother’s Social Security check be deposited in an escrow account.
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).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual
allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked
assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The plausibility standard is
not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent
with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’ ” 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). A complaint must contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal
theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence
fragments. Beaudette, 775 F.2d 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.
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not indicate a legal basis for his request, nor is there any
suggestion he has exhausted administrative remedies to obtain the relief he seeks.
Therefore, even construing his pleading liberally, he simply does not set forth a valid federal
claim. See, e.g., Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not
required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether
complaint states a claim for relief).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is
-2-

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/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A GAUGHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 1/28/15

-3-