Brown v. Lutti et al
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action. 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 Dan Aaron Polster(C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ROBERT LUTTI, Judge, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1526
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff pro se Hamilton Brown, a Pennsylvania resident, filed this
in forma pauperis action against Pennsylvania Judge Robert Lutti and seven other defendants,
all of whom are located in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff appears to challenge orders in a Pennsylvania
foreclosure action, and alleges he is being “stalked and electronically harassed.” Complaint,
p.2. He seeks damages exceeding $3 million. For the reasons stated below, this action is
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).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. 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. Twombly, 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 (2009).
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.
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). Even construing the
Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924
(6th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting he might have a valid
federal claim, or even that there is a arguable basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. This case is
therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir.
1999); see, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)(citing numerous Supreme Court
cases for the proposition that attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of
jurisdiction); see also, In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir.1988)(recognizing that
federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Dan Aaron Polster 8/13/15
DAN AARON POLSTER
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?