Davis v. Jones et al
Filing
5
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action. 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. This case is closed. Judge Sara Lioi on 4/19/2016. (S,He)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES DAVIS,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
AMY JONES, Judge, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:16cv379
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
On February 19, 2016, pro se plaintiff, Charles Davis, an inmate at the Summit
County Jail, filed this action against Judge Amy Jones, Attorneys Andrea Whitaker and
Aviva Wilcater, Akron A.P.D. Bage [sic] No. 1333-1330-1372, and Cross Roads Realty
Company. Plaintiff does not set forth substantive allegations or an intelligible legal theory
in the complaint.
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 a
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. (case citation omitted).
Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably
suggesting that plaintiff might have a valid 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).
This case is therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. See Apple v. Glenn, 183
F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (complaint may be summarily dismissed when claim is not
arguably plausible).
Based on the foregoing, this action is dismissed. 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. This
case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2016
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?