McCoy v. Obama
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc # 1 , 2 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 10/17/2011. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIE R. McCOY, III,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA,
DEFENDANT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:11cv1664
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Willie R. McCoy, III filed this action against the United
States President, Barak Obama. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the United States
Treasury is holding funds to which he believes he is entitled. He seeks release of the funds.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That
Application is granted.
Background
Plaintiff=s Complaint is very brief. It states in its entirety:
President Barak Obama, Washington D.C. This Complaint is
Consearning [sic] my funds that’s [sic] being withheld by the President of the
United States of America. I=ve been on a reality show called Big Brother for
the last 8 years. I=m asking the court to have my funds released out of the
United States treasury and into a personal bank account of my own.
ECF. No. 1 at 1.
Standard of Review
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454
U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district
court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis 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); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir.
1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or
when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks Aplausibility in the
complaint.@ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading must contain
a Ashort and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.@
Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (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. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not
required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than Aan unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.@ Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. A pleading that
offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
1
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.
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th
Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks
v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir. 1985).
2
Analysis
This action lacks an arguable basis in law and fact. The United States, as a
sovereign, cannot be sued without its prior consent, and the terms of its consent define the
Court=s subject matter jurisdiction. McGinness v. U.S., 90 F.3d 143, 145 (6th Cir. 1996). A
waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed, unequivocally expressed, and
cannot be implied. U.S. v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969); Soriano v. U.S., 352 U.S. 270, 276
(1957). Claims asserted against United States government officials in their official capacities
are construed as claims against the United States. See Name.Space, Inc. v. Network
Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573, 581 (2d Cir. 2000)(finding that agencies, instrumentalities,
and officers of the federal government cannot be sued under antitrust laws); Berger v.
Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir.1991)(stating that a Bivens claim cannot be asserted
against the United States government or its employees in their official capacities).
Plaintiff=s claims against Barak Obama are clearly asserted against him in
his official capacity as the President of the United States. Consequently, Plaintiff must
articulate a cause of action in his Complaint for which the United States has waived its
sovereign immunity. No cause of action, however, is listed in the Complaint and none is
apparent on the face of the pleading.
Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not
without limits. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); 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.,
3
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.
Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would Arequire ...[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. at 1278. Even liberally construing
the pleading, there is not a sufficient indication that the United States waived its sovereign
immunity to allow this matter to proceed.
Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 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.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 17, 2011
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good
faith.
4
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?