Ledford v. Wahlberg

Filing 5

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Accordingly, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is granted and 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/24/15. (LC,S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Kristine Ledford, aka Annette Wilson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mark Walberg, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1648
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Kristine Ledford aka Annette Wilson filed this Complaint against actor
Mark Walberg and the former music group, New Kids on the Block. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
claims Walberg is holding some of her personal property and has information that could lead to
the conviction of Carl James Wilson. She seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That
Application is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges the actor, Mark Walberg, is holding information that could result in the
conviction of Carl James Wilson on child molestation charges. She contends Walberg has a
letter written in 2003 which pertains to Haley Bettes, domestic violence tapes pertaining to
Steven Bettes, and tapes of Wilson. She states one of the tapes provides evidence of kidnaping.

She alleges Walberg is also holding poetry books from North Shore Junior High School, medals
from the Special Olympics, children’s books, and a sword shipped to her in 2001. She indicates
Walberg was on tour with New Kids on the Block in Medford, Oregon in 1991 when they sang
her songs outside of the private entrance fence. She seeks $ 8,700,000.00 from New Kids on
the Block, $900,000.00 from Walberg, and 3% royalties on all of Walberg’s films.
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 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

-2-

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).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has not stated a claim in her Complaint. Principles requiring generous
construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594
(6th Cir. 1989); 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. Beaudett, 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. at
1278. Moreover, Plaintiff’s failure to identify a particular legal theory in her Complaint places
an unfair burden on the Defendants to speculate on the potential claims that Plaintiff may be
raising against them and the defenses they might assert in response to each of these possible
causes of action. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d at 594. Even liberally construed, the Complaint
does not sufficiently state a claim upon which Plaintiff can obtain relief.

-3-

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
granted and 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.

Dated: 11/24/15

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge

-4-