Gowdy v. Mitchell et al

Filing 4

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 4/27/17. The Court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for the reasons set forth in this order. 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 Doc. 2 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUANITA L. GOWDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARY MITCHELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 801
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
OPINION & ORDER

On April 13, 2017, Plaintiff pro se Juanita L. Gowdy filed this in forma pauperis action
against Defendants Mary Mitchell and Cynthia Malcolm. Her brief Complaint is difficult to
understand and contains few allegations, but appears to claim her rights as a grandparent were
violated by employees of the Cuyahoga County’s Division of Children and Family Services.
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,

1

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).

470 (6th Cir. 2010).
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.
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 she 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). 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.

Dated: April 27, 2017

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-