Tisdale et al v. Department of Justice, et al

Filing 6

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/9/17. The Court denies plaintiff's motions for temporary restraining order and for status conference dismisses this action for the reasons set forth in this order. (Related Docs. 2 and 5 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
RICHARD R. TISDALE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1801
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
OPINION & ORDER

On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff pro se Richard Tisdale filed this action against the
Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons. Plaintiff’s 1-page Complaint alleges he “was
aggrieved by the use of a national security letter,” dated October 15, 2003. He asserts this letter
violates his rights under the USA Patriot Act. While the Complaint is certainly unclear,
attachments to it indicate Plaintiff’s claim is related to his conspiracy and fraud convictions in
this Court in 2005. See, U.S. v. Tisdale, N.D. Ohio Case No. 1:04 CR 610.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 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, 678 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual
allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked
assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The plausibility standard is
not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent
with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id.
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid 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), and the Court finds this
case is therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. See, Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477,
479 (6th Cir. 1999)(complaint may be summarily dismissed when claim is not arguably
plausible). Further, to the extent Plaintiff may be seeking to challenge his criminal convictions,
his sole federal remedy is habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).
Accordingly, the Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and for Status Conference
(ECF ## 2 and 5) are denied, and this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2017

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

-2-