Stradford v. U.S. Bank

Filing 3

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 Patricia A. Gaughan on 2/5/24. (LC,S) re 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

LeShawn Stradford,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. Bank,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:23 CV 2135
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

Pro se plaintiff LeShawn Stradford filed this civil rights action against U.S. Bank. (Doc.
No. 1). The complaint fails to set forth cogent factual allegations or legal claims. The complaint
merely states: “U.S. Bank contain to the federal industry corruption.” (Id.). Plaintiff seeks no
specific relief.
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, however, 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