Thomas v. Brennan et al
Filing
4
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is granted, and her Complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 6/26/18. (LC,S)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JACQUELINE THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:18 CV 1312
CHIEF JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Jacqueline Thomas has filed in this Court a civil rights action against
Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General of the United States; the “Shaker Station (Management)”;
two named individuals; and the United States Postal Service Equal Employment Opportunity
Office (“EEO”). (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff’s allegations in her complaint are unclear, but appear to
relate to a claim she filed with the EEO in 2011, which was denied because it presented the same
charges as a prior claim and/or was untimely, and which she contends the “Shaker Management
fasified [sic] (corrupted)” in some procedural manner “to gain a favorable ruling.” (Doc. 1.)
Plaintiff also has filed a supplemental document. (Doc. 3.) In it, she adds new individuals as
parties; indicates that her 2011 EEO claim alleged discrimination based on “[p]erceived
disability (scared right eye), race/color (black) and retaliation (block from filing a timely EEO
claim and not responding to my EEO claims”; and requests as relief that the Court order the EEO
to process her 2011 claim or reinstate her job with pay. (Doc. 3.)
ANALYSIS
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (per curiam) (stating pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers”); see also Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985) (“The
allegations of a pro se habeas petition, though vague and conclusory, are entitled to a liberal
construction[,]” and “[t]he appropriate liberal construction requires active interpretation in some
cases to construe a pro se petition to encompass any allegation stating federal relief”) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted)). But principles requiring generous construction of pro se
pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir.
1985). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them
or to construct full-blown claims from sentence fragments. Id. at 1278. To do so would “require
. . . [the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, . . . [and] would .
. . transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an
advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Id.; see
also Erwin v. Edwards, 22 Fed. Appx. 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Although liberal construction
requires active interpretation of the filings of a pro se litigant, . . . it . . . does not require a court
to conjure allegations on a litigant’s behalf . . . .”) (internal citations omitted).
Indeed, federal district courts are required to screen all in forma pauperis complaints and
dismiss before service any action the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th
Cir. 2010). In order to state a claim, a complaint must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
2
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 471 (applying the
dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), to dismissals for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). The “allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. They also must be sufficient to give defendants “fair
notice of what [the plaintiff’s] claims are and the grounds upon which they rest.” Swierkiewicz
v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002).
Even construing Plaintiff’s complaint and supplemental document liberally, she has not
met basic pleading requirements or stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. The
Complaint does not set forth coherent factual allegations, recognizable legal grounds, or a
request for relief sufficient to state any plausible federal claim against the named defendants.
Specifically, it does not present any factual or legal basis for her discrimination claims against
the U.S. Postal Service beyond conclusory assertions. The complaint, therefore, must be
dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726
(6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted
conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief); Gilmore v. Corr. Corp.
of Am., 92 Fed. Appx. 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (where a person is named as a defendant in a case
without an allegation of specific conduct, a complaint is subject to dismissal even under the
liberal construction afforded pro se pleadings).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted, and
her Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further
3
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/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Court
Chief Judge
Dated: 6/26/18
4
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?