Johnson v. State of Ohio
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action 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(C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
State of Ohio,
CASE NO. 1:15 CV 0490
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
Pro se Plaintiff Andre Johnson filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State
of Ohio. In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims the State of Ohio has committed commercial fraud
with regard to his property, the “straw-man trust,” and the “Cestui Que (vie) Trusts.” (ECF No.
1 at 3). He seeks to “reclaim all property, accounts, assets, etc.... associated with his straw-man
trust/Cestui Que vie Trust and any and all property accounts that the Secured Party is legally
entitled to.” (ECF No. 1 at 25).
Plaintiff’s Complaint, although lengthy at 114 pages, is composed entirely of
incomprehensible, meaningless rhetoric. Plaintiff is a prisoner in the Mansfield Correctional
Institution. He contends that the United States declared bankruptcy in 1933, and all of the
people’s property has been pledged to the States. He alleges the States use the people as
negotiable instruments, security interests, and bonds “as a transmitting utility, as a surety for the
debt.” (ECF No. 1 at 3). He contends the courts bond people into the commercial markets to be
sold worldwide. He indicates his birth certificate is bought and sold on the stock market and the
world banks trade birth certificates. He alleges the States pledge the people’s property to back
monopoly money. He asserts everything in the courts is turned into a negotiable instrument on
the commercial markets and people are assigned a net worth reflected in the price of a bond. He
states that all crimes have been converted to commercial crimes with the judge acting as the
beneficiary, the individual on trial acting as the trustee, and the prosecutor acting as an executor
within the trust matter before the court. Plaintiff contends the only way to overcome this
situation is to establish a security agreement between the individual and the straw-man and then
file a UCC financing statement “to secure a claim via a superior security interest against the
capitalized legal fiction, the property, and the collateral.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). He indicates the
security interest is placed on the birth certificate and social security account “by and through
acceptance of value included in this process is the creation of power of attorney and copyright
notice.” (ECF No. 1 at 6). He states the individual becomes a secured party creditor...and the
filing of the existence of these documents will redeem the natural person and the debtor/straw
man from the commercial system... .” (ECF No. 1 at 6). He asks this Court to order the State of
Ohio to return all property or assets “that don’t belong to them” and “pay the damages for these
frauds against the secured party creditor.” (ECF No. 1 at 26).
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 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 the allegations in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 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. 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. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no factual allegations, no legal causes of action, and no
prayer for relief that would address legal causes of action. Although the standard of review for
pro se pleadings is liberal, it must meet the basic pleading requirements of Federal Civil
Procedure Rule 8. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir.
2008). The Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s legal causes
of action are, and the factual grounds upon which they rest. Id. Plaintiff’s Complaint consists
entirely of unsupported, meaningless rhetoric with no basis in law or fact. He, simply,
has no viable legal claim that he is a secured party creditor under the UCC or is entitled to relief
under any theory of commercial law.
Accordingly, 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
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?