Muina v. Roman Diocese of the State of Ohio, Cleveland Division
Filing
5
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: 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 9/28/15. (LC,S) re 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
JANTONIO RAF MUINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROMAN DIOCESE OF THE STATE OF OHIO,
CLEVELAND DIVISION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1936
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On September 18, 2015, plaintiff pro se Jantonio Raf Muina filed this in forma pauperis
action against Defendants Roman Diocese of the State of Ohio, Cleveland Division, Denis
Schnurr, and Cardinal Malonee. The complaint does not contain coherent fact allegations, nor
does it set forth an intelligible legal claim.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam), 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.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th
Cir. 2010).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
1
An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the
plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that
it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim
for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith,
507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir.
1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).
“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. 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.
Even construing the complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Brand v.
Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), there are no allegations suggesting he might have a
valid federal claim. See, 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 dismissed
-2-
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.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 9/28/15
-3-
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?