Pena v. Firelands Regional Medical Center et al
Memorandum Opinion: the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). 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 8/25/2017. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Mary N. Pena,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01611
Firelands Regional Medical Center, et al.
On August 1, 2017, plaintiff pro se Mary N. Pena filed this in forma pauperis civil rights action
against Defendants Firelands Regional Medical Center, Mercy Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation,
and the City of Huron. Plaintiff, who is apparently hospitalized, alleges: she is receiving medicines
without her authorization; her mail has been tampered with; she is not being tried in the district
“that the situation took place;” she has not been able to keep her property; and, she pled no contest
but was found guilty. Plaintiff seeks $21 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
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).
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 against the named 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, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed
under section 1915(e). 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?