Mickey v. Spanagal et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action. Judge Dan A. Polster 1/6/16 (C,KA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
AUDREY L. MICKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE SPANAGAL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16 CV 0002
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff pro se Audrey L. Mickey filed this action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against Parma Municipal Judge Spanagal
and Cuyahoga County Judge Corrigan. The Complaint does not contain intelligible fact
allegations, but appears to assert Defendants have engaged in conduct violating Ohio criminal
statutes. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages. For the reasons stated below, this action
is dismissed.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 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, 678 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual
allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked
assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The plausibility standard is
not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent
with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’” 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). Given the most liberal
construction, the Complaint does not contain allegations remotely suggesting Plaintiff might
have a valid federal claim, or even that there is a reasonable 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Dan Aaron Polster 1/6/16
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-