Carswell v. Summa Health System

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order: The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed under 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 # 2 , 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 9/27/2013. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

GENESE CARSWELL,

PLAINTIFF,
vs.

SUMMA HEALTH SYSTEM,

DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:13cv965

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On April 29, 2013, pro se plaintiff Genese Carswell filed this in forma pauperis
action against Summa Health System. The document initiating the lawsuit is entitled “Complaint
of Wrongful Discharge” (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint of Wrongful Discharge” on July 10,
2013 (Doc. No. 3). The amended complaint asserts in extremely general terms that defendant
discriminated against plaintiff regarding disciplinary matters based on “race, sex, age, religion
and tenure.” (Id.)
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 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th

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 28 U.S.C. § 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).

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 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 (2009). 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.
The entire complaint, other than the portion related to this Court’s jurisdiction,
reads: “Now comes Genese Carswell, plaintiff to definitely allege and charge the defendant
Summa Health System and/via Chuck Noebe/Area Manager, Environmental Services, with
discrimination via race, sex, age, religion and tenure and violation of summa health system’s
employment policy # 9.2 and 9.4 regarding disciplinary actions and the like.” (Doc. No. 3 at 1–
2.) Even construing the amended 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. 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).
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED under 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2013
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE