Brown v. Islamic Psychologist Treatment Team Womens Committee et al

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed. The Court further certifies, 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 1/14/16. (C,D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

James Edward Brown,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:15 CV 2295
JUDGE JAMES G. CARR

v.
OPINION AND ORDER
Islamic Psychologist Treatment
Team Women’s Committee, et al.,
Defendants.

Pro se Plaintiff James Edward Brown, a state prisoner identifying himself as “Champion
Chocolate Thunder,” has filed this in forma pauperis action against a defendant he identifies as the
“Islammic [sic] Psychologist Treatment Team Women Committee.”

His complaint is

incomprehensible. The Court is unable to discern any intelligible factual basis for the plaintiff’s
claims, or any coherent statement of his intended cause (or causes) of action. The plaintiff asserts
he seeks the following relief:
I would like women Politician United States, Africa and Queen of England
Professional and Amateur Queen Bettea Athletic Prophets Olympic currency for
each 129 professional constitutional fighter in each city, state, country or countree.
I would like the Kings of Africa America currency in each city, state, and country or
countree.
(Doc. No. 1 at 6.)
Although pro se pleadings are held less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), pro se plaintiffs are still required to meet
basic pleading requirements and a court is not required to conjure allegations on his 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. Therefore, “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 of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a
complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer
open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1999).
The Court finds this action warrants sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn. The
allegations in the complaint are so rambling and unsubstantial that they do not provide a basis to
establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The Court further 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/ James G. Carr
JAMES G. CARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-