Reid v. Mabus et al
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed under § 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. Judge Sara Lioi on 2/26/2016. (S,He)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JESSE WAYNE REID, JR.,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
RAY MABUS, et al,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:15-cv-2055
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Jesse Wayne Reid, Jr. filed this in forma pauperis mandamus action
against Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy; Sam Erhart, Navy Acting Secretary; Lt. Col.
Popella; Elizabeth Fishback; Bob Casey; Jim Brown; Booz Allen Hamilton; the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; Special Agent Sean Langford, FBI Director; James Comey;
Special Agent Timothy Pivnichny; Pat Toomey; Jim Brennan; the Central Intelligence
Agency; the Capitol Police; Capitol Police Agent Blasey; and Sgt. Bell, Capitol Police.
(Doc. No. 1 [“Compl”].) Plaintiff alleges the Navy Sea Systems Command in Washington
D.C. has been “sending a wireless signal via satellite in real time to harass him
electronically using synthetic technology because of law suits he filed against the federal
government.” (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks $10 million in damages and a cease and desist
order.
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) (citation omitted). However, 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, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th 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, 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 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. 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.
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. See 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).
2
Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without
limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (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 court “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.
Even construing the complaint liberally, plaintiff does not set forth plausible federal
claim under the Twombly/Iqbal standard set forth above. This action is therefore dismissed
under § 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: February 26, 2016
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?