Bair v. Clinton et al

Filing 7

Memorandum Opinion and Order. The complaint does not state any conceivable, viable cause of action against the defendants. Accordingly, it is subject to immediate dismissal prior to service. 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 John R. Adams on 3/27/13. (R,Sh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Christopher M. Bair,
Plaintiff,
v.
Hilary R. Clinton, et al.,
Defendants.

) CASE NO. 5:13CV593
)
)
) JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
)
)
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
) AND ORDER
)

On March 19, 2013, Plaintiff Christopher Bair filed this matter naming Bill and Hillary
Clinton as Defendants. For the reasons that follow, this matter is DISMISSED.
Analysis
While 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 may dismiss an
action sua sponte if the complaint is so “implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion” as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Apple v. Glenn, 183
F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999)(citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)). Moreover,
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). For the following
reasons, the Court finds the claim asserted in this action satisfies these criterion.
The complaint lacks any factual allegations against the named defendants or any other

individuals. It includes citations to non-existent legal authority such as Civil Rule 85B-Q and
includes text that does not appear to form any known word, such as “soesuctance”and “proscutiraie.”
In any event, the complaint does not state any conceivable, viable cause of action against the
defendants. Accordingly, it is subject to immediate dismissal prior to service.
Conclusion
Based upon the above, 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.

Date: March 27, 2013

/s/ John R. Adams
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2