Hargrove v. State of Ohio et al
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this matter under Section 1915A. An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 9/12/16. (K,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DANIEL P. HARGROVE,
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
CASE NO. 5:16 CV 1238
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, pro se plaintiff Daniel P. Hargrove, a state prisoner,
has filed this civil action for damages against the State of Ohio and Summit County. The plaintiff
appears to complain about his treatment during state criminal proceedings; however, his complaint
and other subsequent filings (docket nos. 6, 8) are convoluted and unclear and do not set forth
substantive allegations or legal theories that are reasonably intelligible to the Court.
Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, principles requiring generous
construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d
1274, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1985). Pro se plaintiffs are required to meet basic pleading requirements
and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F.
App'x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, a pro se complaint
must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard
articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007) governs dismissals under 28 U.S.C. §1915A). Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires that a
complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. Federal district courts are required, under 28 U.S.C. §1915A, to dismiss before service any
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief.
Even liberally construed, the plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth allegations reasonably
suggesting he might have a plausible federal claim against the defendants. See Lillard v. Shelby
County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to accept summary
allegations or unwarranted conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief).
Further, the State of Ohio is immune from suit in federal court by virtue of the Eleventh
Amendment. Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 358 (6th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under Section 1915A. The Court further certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 12, 2016
/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?