Buess et al v. Piscitelli et al

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order: 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 appealfrom this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 7/16/2013. (S,AL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID L. BUESS, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
PAUL PISCITELLI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:13 CV 1137
Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

On May 21, 2013, plaintiff pro se David L. Buess filed this in forma pauperis action against Paul
Piscitelli, Andrew M. Cuomo, Suffolk County, John Kasick, County of Richland, and Hancock County
Commissioners. The complaint, which is entitled “Civil Action in Common Law with Criminal
Intent,” is purported to be filed on behalf of Winona Mae Palmiotti, who it is alleged was removed
from her parents’ custody in 1977.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)
(per curiam), 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. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
1

A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atlantic 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 (2009). 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.
The complaint does not contain an understandable set of allegations, nor does it set forth a
coherent legal theory. Thus, even construing the allegations liberally in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), he does not state a valid claim against these
defendants. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to
accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states
a claim for relief).
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.
So Ordered.
s/Jeffrey J. Helmick
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2