McQueen v. Heinzmann et al
Filing
5
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's 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 Jeffrey J. Helmick on 2/5/2016. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
John McQueen,
Case No. 1:15-cv-1071
Plaintiff
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
Henry G. Heinzman, et al.,
Defendants
Plaintiff pro se John McQueen brings this in forma pauperis action against Henry G. Heinzmann
and Mark Davis. McQeen alleges he sought medical treatment from Heinzmann, and told
Heinzmann that his staff was racist. He further alleges Heinzmann told him to go elsewhere for
treatment, and apparently referred him to Davis. Plaintiff thereafter received a prescription for
Viagra from Davis, who allegedly told him that “the people at Center Street did not like to treat
blacks.” Complaint, p.2. Davis subsequently refused to have McQueen as a patient. The
Complaint, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserts violation McQueen’s rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff also cites 15 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 1691. He seeks $5 million in
damages.
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.1 Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. 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.
In Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), the Supreme Court stated that "the initial inquiry
[in a section 1983 action] must focus on whether the two essential elements ... are present: (1) whether
the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether
this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States." Plaintiff does not meet the threshold requirement in Parratt, as the Complaint
does not set forth allegations indicating Defendants acted under color of state law. Further, Plaintiff
does not indicate how the other two statutes he cites, which concern timely settlement of credit card
1
An in forma pauperis 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. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007);
Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224
(6th Cir. 1986).
2
claims against a decedent’s estate (15 U.S.C. § 1651), and prohibition of discrimination in the extension
of credit (15 U.S.C. § 1691), relate to any potential claim he may have.
In sum, even construing the Complaint liberally, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir.
2008), it does not contain sufficient allegations reasonably suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid
federal 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, Plaintiff’s 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.
So ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
3
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?