Rodriguez v. State of Ohio et al
Filing
8
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/13/18 dismissing this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for the reasons set forth in this order. 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 Doc. 1 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
JUAN-ALBERTO RUIZ RODRIGUEZ,
: CASE NO. 1:18-CV-01124
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
: OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. No. 1]
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff Juan-Alberto Ruiz Rodriguez filed this action against the State of Ohio,
Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutor Pinkey Carr, and Defense Attorney Patricia London.
The Complaint is composed entirely of meaningless rhetoric. It contains no discernable factual
allegations and no discernable legal claims against the Defendants. Plaintiff attaches documents
purporting to be filed under the Uniform Commercial Code, and a 2007 sentencing entry from a
criminal action against him in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Notably, Carr
was the prosecutor in that case and London was Plaintiff’s attorney. He asks that this criminal
case be vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that he be released from custody.
I. Legal Standard
A District Court is expressly authorized to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner
seeking relief from a governmental entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the Court
concludes that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a Defendant who is immune from such relief.1
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
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. 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).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff appears to be challenging the validity of his 2007 conviction in Cuyahoga
County. His sole remedy for this purpose in federal court is habeas corpus.2 The Uniform
Commercial Code does not provide a basis for relief from a criminal conviction or sentence.
1
28 U.S.C. §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000); see
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that
attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of jurisdiction); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300
(6th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims)
2
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
2
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to pursue some other kind of claim, he failed to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. To meet basic notice pleading requirements, the
Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s claims are and the
grounds upon which they rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437
(6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff does not allege facts, nor does he assert any discernable legal claim.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 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.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 13, 2018
3
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in
good faith.
3
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?