Spencer-Dey v. G.C. Services

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, this action must be and is therefore 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 faith. Related document 1 . Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 6/3/2016. (K,K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CANDACE K. SPENCER-DEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
G.C. SERVICES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16 CV 1223
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff pro se Candace Spencer-Dey filed this in forma pauperis
action against Defendant G.C. Services. While the Complaint is unclear, Plaintiff makes a
general allegation that Defendant confiscated $3,573.45 from her without a valid contract. She
asserts conspiracy, fraud, and violation of her constitutional rights.
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). 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. Beaudette, 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.
Giving the Complaint the most liberal construction, it simply does not set forth
allegations remotely suggesting a valid claim for relief. This action must be and is therefore
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 faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Dan Aaron Polster
6/3/2016
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-