Starr v. State of Ohio, et al.,

Filing 4

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/5/17 granting plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further 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
------------------------------------------------------:
GREGORY M. STARR,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
:
THE STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1702

OPINION & ORDER

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, pro se Plaintiff Gregory Starr filed this action
seeking a “Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus” against the State of Ohio and the United States
Department of Health and Human Services. (Doc. No. 1.) Because the Plaintiff’s Complaint
does not set forth intelligible allegations or discernibly set forth the relief sought, the Court
entered an order on October 20, 2017, allowing the Plaintiff 28 days to file an amended pleading
clearly setting forth his claims in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. This order was mailed to
the Plaintiff at the address he provided.
More than twenty eight days have now passed, but the Plaintiff has not filed an amended
pleading. Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, see Williams v.
Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), 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). Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements and courts are not required
to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir.
2001). Federal district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), to screen
all in forma pauperis actions, and to dismiss before service any such action that the court
determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). To state a claim, a complaint must set forth “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 470-71
(holding “that the dismissal standard articulated in [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)] governs dismissals for failure to state a
claim under” § 1915(e)(2)(B)).
The vague and unclear legal assertions and conclusions set forth in the Plaintiff’s
Complaint are unintelligible to the Court and are insufficient to suggest he might may have any
plausible federal claim against the Defendants on which the Court may grant relief. See Lillard
v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to accept
summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether a complaint
states a claim for relief). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
No. 2) is granted, but his Complaint is now dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court further 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: December 5, 2017

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-