Byrd v. Supplemental Staffing et al
Order: The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge James G. Carr on 3/23/15. (C,D)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Sidney L. Byrd,
Case No. 3:14 CV 2680
Supplemental Staffing, et al.
On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff pro se Sidney L. Byrd filed this in forma pauperis action
against Supplemental Staffing, Calvary Cemetery, Malcolm C. Richards, “Lockwood,” and
Karen E. Asbury. The Complaint is very brief and contains no allegations. Plaintiff appears,
however, to be challenging an Ohio Workers Compensation benefits decision.
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. 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 (6th Cir. 1996).
Even construing the Complaint liberally, there are no allegations indicating a basis for
this Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not invoke a federal statute in support of his claim, and
there is no suggestion the requirements for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction are met. See, 28
U.S.C. § 1332. This case is therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Lowe v.
Hustetler, No. 89-5996, 1990 WL 66822 (6th Cir. May 21, 1990).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is
dismissed under section 1915(e). I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal
from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
S/James G. Carr
Sr. U.S. District Judge
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?