Duncan v. Smith et al
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). This action is dismissed pursuant to 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. Judge John R. Adams on 12/1/15. (K,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JASMINE MARIE DUNCAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:15 CV 2204
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Jasmine Marie Duncan filed this action against Robert Smith, Mike
Volpe, Mr. Reed, Brandon Harris, and Stark County Children Services. Plaintiff’s brief
Complaint does not allege any facts and is composed entirely of random legal statements and
citations. She seeks $20,000.00 in damages.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That
Application is granted.
Although 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 Court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis 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 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 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.
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. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must
construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds,
Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not meet these minimum pleading requirements. Although
pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110
(6th Cir. 1991), the Court is not required to conjure up unpled allegations. Bassett v. National
Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). The Complaint must give the
Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest.
Plaintiff does not include any factual allegations, does not assert a discernable claim based on
recognized legal authority, and fails to state a cause of action within the jurisdiction of this
-2-
Court. Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
granted, and this action is dismissed pursuant to 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.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 1, 2015
S/John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is
not taken in good faith.
-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?