Crandall v. Scharren et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order re 2 granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing case pursuant to Section 1915(e). Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge David A. Katz on 11/7/2011. (R,Ci)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DALE R. CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CYNTHIA G. SCHARREN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:11 CV 1688
JUDGE DAVID A. KATZ
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On August 12, 2011, plaintiff pro se Dale R. Campbell filed this in forma pauperis action
against Cynthia G. Scharren, Deborah Croy, and Matthew G. Crandall. The complaint alleges
Scharren forged the signature of Matthew Crandall on 13 checks “from plaintiff’s Social Security
Trust fund made to the order of Matthew.” Complaint, p.3. Croy allegedly aided and abetted
Scharren. Plaintiff asserts this conduct constitutes fraud and theft, and that the conduct is ongoing.
He seeks monetary damages and referral of this case to the United States Attorney for prosecution.
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 district court is required to
dismiss an 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.1 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

1

A claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without
service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking section
1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set
forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v.
Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v.
Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir.
1985).

(6th Cir. 1996).
As a threshold matter, there are no facts set forth in the complaint suggesting a proper basis
for this court's civil jurisdiction, as the parties are all located in Ohio, and no federal statute
providing a private cause of action for the conduct complained of is implicated by plaintiff’s claim.
Further, to the extent plaintiff seeks to bring criminal charges in this case, such charges may only
be initiated by the United States Attorney. 28 U.S.C. § 547; Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is
dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ David A. Katz
DAVID A. KATZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2