Cohen v. United States Department of Treasury et al

Filing 6

Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc # 2 ) is granted. This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §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. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 5/21/2018. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ANDRE MARQUIS COHEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES
DEPT. OF TREASURY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:18 CV 208
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:

Pro se Plaintiff filed this action against twenty-seven Defendants, which include the
United States Department of Treasury, the State of Ohio, four Municipalities, four Judges, one
Bailiff, one Court Clerk, eleven Police Officers and four people without official titles. The 111
page Complaint is composed almost entirely of incoherent and meaningless rhetoric. He does
not assert a viable legal cause of action. He seeks $ 1,000,000,000.00 in damages.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). That Motion is
granted.

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint is composed of various meaningless documents through which
Plaintiff appears to be attempting to create a security interest in himself as the debtor and

creditor. He asks this Court to declare him to be his only creditor on the theory that he is the
only one to have invested in himself. He theorizes that as the only creditor, no one else can have
a debt against him, including the Internal Revenue Service. He refers to liens and levies he is
attempting to file. He further states, without any explanation, that unspecified police listed him
as armed and dangerous. He indicated he scraped his back on handcuffs. He states he scratched
his leg and got bed sores. He states without explanation that police officers flattened his tires
and he spent two days in segregation in the Lorain County Jail because he was talking. He does
not assert any recognizable legal causes of action.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
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 Court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis 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). An action has no arguable basis in law when the
Defendant is immune from suit or when the Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when
the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A

-2-

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. Bell Atl. Corp., 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. 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. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet basic notice pleading requirements. He
does not mention any of the Defendants in the documents comprising the Complaint, nor does
he specify any legal cause of action entitling him to relief. The Complaint must give the
Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s claims are and the factual grounds upon which they
rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). This
pleading does neither of those things. It fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted
and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §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.1
1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
-3-

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: May 21, 2018

An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
-4-