Payne v. Cuyahoga County Jail, et al

Filing 4

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/26/17 dismissing this action under 1915A 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. (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
KEVIN PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1478
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
OPINION & ORDER

On July 13, 2017, plaintiff pro se Kevin Payne, an inmate at the Cuyahoga County Jail,
filed this civil rights action against Cuyahoga County Jail and the Sheriff’s Department. The
complaint does not set forth substantive allegations. Instead, plaintiff asserts in summary terms
that he was denied access to the jail law library, which was “detrimental to [his] prior and future
criminal cases.”
A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner
seeking relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the
court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if
the plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000).
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 liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting plaintiff 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. Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915A. 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: July 26, 2017

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

2