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

Download PDF
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

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?