Doyle v. Sarantopolous et al
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, 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. Related documents 1 , 2 . Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 2/9/2018. (K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ATHAN G. SARANTOPOLOUS, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 2583
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On December 12, 2017, plaintiff pro se Kenneth Doyle filed this in forma pauperis action
against defendants Athan G. Sarantopolous and Despina Sarantopolous. Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint is unclear, but he appears to allege defendants promised to convey real property to him in
return for his labor, but did not honor their promise. He asserts his civil rights were violated, that he
was subjected to peonage in violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 77, and that defendants are liable for
breach of contract.
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
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.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 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 he
might have a valid federal claim against the named defendants. 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). Further, the complaint does
not contain diversity of citizenship allegations that could provide jurisdiction over plaintiff’s breach of
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.
s/Dan Aaron Polster
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?