Grasso v. Hoke

Filing 6

Memorandum Opinion and Order. The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed for the reasons stated. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from thisdecision could not be taken in good faith. Related document 2 . Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 9/12/2017. (R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT M. GRASSO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN HOKE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1636
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On August 4, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Robert M. Grasso filed this in forma pauperis action
against Martin Hoke. His Complaint, while difficult to decipher, seeks $22.8 billion for
“services rendered” in connection with the Hard Rock Casino, New Jersey horse track, and
Atlanta dance halls.
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 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. 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).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief my 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
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 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. 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.
/S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
September 12, 2017
-2-