Mott v. Mittal Steel et al
Filing
3
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed. 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 Benita Y. Pearson on 1/29/2018. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRENCE MOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
MITTAL STEEL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:17CV2495
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER
I.
Pro se Plaintiff Terrence Mott brings this action under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961—1968, against the following
Defendants: Mittal Steel, Targa Resources, M.D. Anderson, Dearing Compressor, Archrock
Compression, Diversified Gas & Oil, Gazprom, DLA Piper & Assoc., Kelley and Ferraro, Local
396 Plumbers & Steamfitters, Blue Tree Capital, Ohio Edison, First Energy, Unicredito Banco,
MCM Management, Meggitt, Weeden & Co. LP, Buckeye Partners (Pipeline), Lukoil, BNP
Paribas, Otto Family, OEA School Teachers Union, Ohio Federation of Teachers, Greenstar
Recycling, Don Plusquellic, Harry Nicholson, Wife Judy, Gazprom Bank, Attorney Gil Blair,
Masonic Lodges, Order of the Star, Jehovah Witness, Mooney Graduates, Atlas Copco
Compression, Attorney James B. Dietz, and Farm Credit Mid-America.1 ECF No. 2. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s action is dismissed.
1
Plaintiff indicates “others to be name in future.”
(4:17CV2495)
II.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 2), identifies the parties, judges and alleges the
following:
I, Terrence Mott, am charging the above defendants with RICO violations and
polluting of the nat. gas formation (Clinton formation) with chemical laden
emissions and other resperatory [sic] fibrous lung irritants, for the—(Warren,
OH plant asbestos removal currently)—purpose of extortion, to pay for failing
casinos worldwide and too many hospitals in Akron that don't bring in foreign
revenue like manufacturing. Our country and the world was set to go into a
depression under Clinton-Bush lazy southernor [sic] agendas. Mineral Ridge
area Brittish MI-6 human traffickers have no say in this case. I Terrence Mott
am taking a position in MCM managed Warren OH properties and the Monaca
PA cracker plant.
The Amended Complaint ends with nothing more added other than the date and Plaintiff’s
signature and address.2
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. 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. A
2
The Amended Complaint is an improvement over the original complaint in that it is
type-written and ends with a complete sentence.
2
(4:17CV2495)
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id.
Even when liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not contain
allegations reasonably suggesting he might have a valid claim, see, Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of
Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that the court is not required to accept summary
allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim
for relief). Therefore, the Court finds this case is appropriately subject to summary dismissal.
See Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that a complaint may be
summarily dismissed when claim is not arguably plausible).
III.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 29, 2018
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
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?