Spencer-Dey v. Jones

Filing 12

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this matter under section 1915(e). An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 5/31/16. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CANDACE K. SPENCER-DEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES E. JONES, President,
Illuminating Company, A-FECC,
Defendant..

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:16 CV 903

JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Candace Spencer-Bey brings this in forma pauperis action against
Illuminating Company President, Charles E. Jones. The two-page complaint, which appears to
rely on the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, does not set forth intelligible
fact allegations or a coherent legal theory.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam), 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 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th
Cir. 2010).
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. 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); Harris
v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).

Even construing the complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the 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 County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716
(6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal
conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). This action is therefore
dismissed under section 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.

Date: May 31, 2016

/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2