Duncan v. Ohio Supreme Court-Court of Claims et al
Filing
5
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Based on the foregoing, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). Further, 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. Judge Sara Lioi on 10/1/2015. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JASMINE MARIE DUNCAN,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
OHIO SUPREME COURT-COURT OF
CLAIMS, et al,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:15-cv-1845
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On September 8, 2015, pro se plaintiff Jasmine Marie Duncan filed this in forma
pauperis action against the “Ohio Supreme Court-Court of Claims,” Brandon Harris, Mike
Volpe, Robert Smith, Canton Municipal Court, Stark County Family Court, and “Judicial
Branch Stark County.” Plaintiff’s brief complaint is unclear, but appears to allege that she is
dissatisfied with an adverse Ohio court decision. She further alleges that: defendant Harris
conducted a secret investigation of her; defendant Volpe negligently performed a paternityrelated DNA test; and defendant Smith was negligent “due to personal affairs with other
women.” Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $20,000.00.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454
U.S. 364, 365, 102 S. Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), 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. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827,
104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v.
City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it
lack “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (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, 129
S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (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 pleading are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed
factual allegations, but the complaint must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 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.
Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without
limits. 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 Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 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 “require ... [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.
2
Even construing the pleading filed in this case liberally and in a light most
favorable to 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
Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (court not required to accept summary
allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim
for relief).
Based on the foregoing, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and
this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Further, 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: October 1, 2015
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
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?