Coates Duncan v. Shephard

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court finds this action warrants sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn . The allegations in the complaint are so unsubstantial that they do not provide a basis to establish this Court 's subject-matter jurisdiction. This action is dismissed. 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. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/26/2018. (R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

PENELOPE GENELL COATE
DUNCAN, Pro Se,
Plaintiff
v.
CHEYENNE SHEPHARD, et al.,

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17 CV 2633

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro Se Plaintiff Penelope Genell Coate Duncan has filed a complaint in this action against
Cheyenne Shephard and the United States Government. (Doc. No. 1.) Her Complaint, in total,
states as follows: “Attempted murder and embezzlement.” She has filed no other pleadings with
the Court.
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 lenient treatment accorded pro
se plaintiffs has limits. See e.g., Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.1996). Pro se
litigants must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure
allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 Fed. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001).
Furthermore, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to police the boundaries

of their jurisdiction. “[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when
the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1999).
The Court finds this action warrants sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn. The
allegations in the complaint are so unsubstantial that they do not provide a basis to establish this
Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. 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.

/S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

January 26, 2018

2