Jones v Wayne County Sheriff Department
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2 ). Further, this matter is dismissed as frivolous. An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 11/24/15. (K,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
JASON KEITH JONES,
WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
CASE NO. 5:15 CV 1767
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Jason Keith Jones has filed this civil rights action seeking $130,000 in
damages against the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department. He has not paid the filing fee, but has
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) The plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted; however, for the reasons stated below, his complaint is
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), federal district
courts are required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen and dismiss before service any in forma
pauperis action the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to state a claim
on which relief may be granted, a complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. (holding that the dismissal standard
articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007) governs dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). The plaintiff’s “[f]actual
allegations must be enough to raise the right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555.
An action is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. A court may
therefore dismiss a complaint as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory
or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
An action also has no arguable basis in fact “if it describes fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Abner
v. SBC (Ameritech), 86 Fed. App’x 958-59 (6th Cir. 2004).
The plaintiff’s complaint, even liberally construed, is frivolous and does not contain
allegations reasonably suggesting he has a plausible federal civil claim against the defendant. The
complaint, which is captioned as a “Motion for Common Law Action Against Trespass of Rights
and Property,” consists entirely of an amalgam of incoherent and incomprehensible legal assertions
and statements that are not connected in any way to any discernible alleged facts, or to discernible
alleged conduct of the defendant. Moreover, the only causes of action alleged in the complaint are
for “trespass” based on federal criminal laws, i.e., the plaintiff alleges trespass under color of 18
U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, and trespass “through identify fraud” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1028. (See
Complt., Doc. No. 1 at 8, 18.)1 Although a pro se litigant is not held to the same standard as a
lawyer, a pro se plaintiff must still meet basic pleading requirements, and the court is not required
to conjure allegations on his behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 Fed. App’x 579, 2001 WL 1556573
(6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further 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: November 24, 2015
/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Even had the plaintiff alleged a discernible federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
his action would be subject to summary dismissal because county sheriffs’ departments are not
entities capable of being sued for civil rights violations under that federal statute.
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?