Knox v. Gwin et al
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and 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 4/3/17. (LC,S) re 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
LARRY D. KNOX,
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 444
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On March 3, 2017, plaintiff pro se Larry D. Knox filed this in forma pauperis action
against the following defendants: U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin, Ohio State Esokh System,
Lorain County Grand Jury Foreman Judith Koba, Lorain County Prosecutor Donna Freeman,
Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Miraldi, Lorain Municipal Court Clerk of Court Lori
A. Maiorana, Lorain Sheriff Phillip R. Stammitti, Lorain Deputy Amanda Berry, Lorain
Municipal Prosecutor, Municipal Court Appointed Attorney, Lorain County Prosecutor Dennis
Will, Lorain County Prosecutor Greg Peltz, Lorain County Sheriff, Municipal Court Bailiff,
Municipal Court Reporter, Lorain County Bondsman, Cuyahoga Detective Kathleen Orlando,
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John Russo, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy
McGinty, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, Lorain County Deputy Clerk Rallen Fairley,
Lorain County Attorney Michael Kinlin, Ohio Attorney General, Elyria Chronicle Telegram,
CMHA Hearing Officer Jun Woo, Cuyahoga County Sheriff Eric Mahan, Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Judge Janet Burnside, and Danita Hicks, CMHA.
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a coherent set of allegations. Instead, it consists
mainly of conclusory legal assertions that his rights under Ohio law and the Constitution have
been violated by defendants. The thrust of his allegations appears to be that he has been arrested
several times since 2007, and that his status as a sex offender has resulted in mistreatment by the
legal system. He further claims that previous civil cases he filed should not have been
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.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th
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.
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).
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. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76
F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal
conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and 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.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
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?