Foster v. Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency et al
Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc # 2 ) is granted. 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 Christopher A. Boyko on 2/16/2017. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
TERRY LEWIS FOSTER,
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2871
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
Pro se Plaintiff Terry Lewis Foster filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e against the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency, the
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department, the
Cuyahoga County Jobs and Family Services Agency, and the Cuyahoga County Children and
Family Services Agency. In the Complaint, which contains no factual allegations, Plaintiff
asserts the Defendants violated their oath of office. He contends this equates to engaging in a
criminal conspiracy and is tantamount to treason. He seeks monetary and unspecified injunctive
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Motion is
LAW AND ANALYSIS
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). An action has no arguable basis in law when the
Defendant is immune from suit or when the Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when
the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199.
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
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).
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). To meet the basic notice pleading requirements of Federal Civil
Procedure Rule 8, the Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s
claims are and the legal grounds upon which they rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic
Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no facts to suggest
what any of the Defendants may have done that Plaintiff believes violated his Constitutional
rights. At best, his claims are stated solely as legal conclusions. Legal conclusions alone are not
sufficient to present a valid claim, and this Court is not required to accept unwarranted factual
inferences. Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Place
v. Shepherd, 446 F.2d 1239, 1244 (6th Cir. 1971) (conclusory section 1983 claim dismissed).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion 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.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: February 16, 2017
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
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?