Myles v. Marion Area Counseling Center Inc. et al
Filing
7
Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed under section 1915A. 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. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 9/25/2018. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Ronald R. Myles, Jr.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01336
Plaintiff
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
Marion Area Counseling Center, Inc., et al.,
Defendants
Plaintiff pro se Ronald R. Myles, Jr., an inmate at FCI Gilmer, brings this civil rights action
against the following Defendants: Marion Area Counseling Center Inc., Marion Probate Court,
Twin Valley Behavioral Health Care, Franklin County Probate Court, Marion County Jail, Marion
County Court of Common Pleas, Marion Municipal Court, Marion Sheriffs Dept., Marion Police
Department, Ronald Myles, Sr., Vivian Myles, Precious Bryant, Vandalia Municipal Court,
Montgomery County Jail, Lucas County Corrections, and the United States District Court.
Plaintiff’s extensive Complaint appears to allege Defendants conspired to hide the fact that
Plaintiff’s father is actually the father of one of Plaintiff’s children. This conspiracy allegedly
involved committing Plaintiff to a mental institution and forcing him to take antipsychotic medicines
to try to kill him. Plaintiff further alleges, inter alia, that: he was sexually harassed and otherwise
mistreated in jail, there were violations of his rights as a criminal defendant in a state prosecution
against him, money he obtained in an armed bank robbery was not returned to him, authorities
covered up sexual molestation of his child, and there were violations of his rights as a criminal
defendant in the federal bank robbery prosecution for which he is now incarcerated..
A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking
relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the court
concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the
plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A;
Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000).
Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett
v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain either direct or
inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy
federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437
(6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to
them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. To
do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ...
[and] would...transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an
advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id.
Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting
Plaintiff 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); cf. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
2
(finding of frivolousness is appropriate if allegations rise to the level of irrational or wholly
incredible). This action is dismissed under section 1915A. 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
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?