Travagliante v. Medina County Courts
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 1/19/17 dismissing this action for the reasons set forth in this order. (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
PHILLIP C. TRAVAGLIANTE,
MEDINA COUNTY COURTS,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 66
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Phillip C. Travagliante brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against
Defendant “Medina County Courts.” His one-page complaint states he sought protection on
January 10, 2017 from Defendant - the same date this action was filed - for himself and his
minor children against abuse by his spouse and her “possible sex offender boyfriend.” Plaintiff
seeks $100 million in damages.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lack
“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 pleading are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The
plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but the complaint must provide
Case No. 1:17 CV 66
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.
Even construing the Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Brand
v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting he might have a valid federal claim, or even that there is a arguable 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).
Case No. 1:17 CV 66
Accordingly, this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 19, 2017
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?