Ford v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC et al
Memorandum Opinion : 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. re 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Lois Ford, Motions terminated: 2 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 5/19/2017. (SG,D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 3:17-cv-0625
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, et al.,
On March 24, 2017, plaintiff pro se Lois Ford filed this in forma pauperis action against
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC (“Carrington”) States. Plaintiff’s one-page Complaint alleges
Carrington filed an action against Ms. Ford in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas
concerning real property in Sylvania, Ohio. She states that action was filed in the wrong venue and
that the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction over the matter. She further
alleges she sought verification of the debt, and that all her debts have been discharged in bankruptcy.
Plaintiff asserts breach of contract and “violation of fundamental Freedoms and Civil Liberties and
Antitrust laws 15 US code 1 and 2 protected by the Constituion of the United States and Treaties
outlined in the Supremacy Clause.” She also asserts violation of 18 USC §§ 241 and 242, and 15
USC sections 1 and 2.
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-defendantunlawfully-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
Even construing the Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Brand v.
Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting she
might have a valid federal claim. 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).
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).
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.
s/Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States 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?