Reeves v. Court of Appeals Department et al

Filing 3

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Accordingly, 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 10/26/15. (LC,S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
SHAQUATA REEVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
OHIO COURT OF APPEALS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15 CV 2032
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff pro se Shaquata Reeves filed this in forma pauperis action
against Defendants Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth Appellate District and John Martin.1
Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that Defendants have declined to file a notice of appeal from
her criminal conviction, thus violating her constitutional rights.
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.2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th
Cir. 2010).

1

The Complaint indicates Martin is employed by the Ohio Court of Appeals.

2

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).