Masters v. Giantz et al

Filing 6

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1 ) is granted, and her complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc. No. 5 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 4/11/2018. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

GLORIA N. MASTERS,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.

DIONSIO GIANTZ, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5: 17 CV 2590
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Gloria N. Masters (“Masters”) has filed this in forma pauperis action
against defendants Dionsio Giantz (“Giantz”), Christopher Dionsio (“Dionsio”), and Shamela
(collectively, “defendants”). (Doc. No. 1-1.) Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings
is liberal, principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Pro
se plaintiffs must still 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) (citations
omitted). Federal district courts are required to dismiss before service any in forma pauperis
complaint that the Court determines fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, is
frivolous or malicious, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune from suit. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In order to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, “a complaint must contain
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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) and Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) governs dismissals
for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). Dismissal for
frivolousness is appropriate where the alleged “claims describ[e] fantastic or delusional
scenarios[.]” Id. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733,
118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts
alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them.”).
Masters’ complaint does not contain allegations that are intelligible to the Court,
discernable legal claims, or a clear request for relief. Rather, her complaint consists a series of
unclear accusations and grievances not connected to any conduct by defendants. Even liberally
construed, Masters’ complaint fails to allege factual matter that, accepted as true, states a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face. Thus, the complaint must be dismissed on that basis. Moreover,
Masters’ allegations are frivolous as defined by the United States Supreme Court, and the
complaint is subject to dismissal on this additional basis.

2

Masters’ application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is granted, and her
complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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: April 11, 2018
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3