Trammell v. Caudill et al

Filing 4

ORDER by Judge S Arthur Spiegel DISMISSING CASE as frivolous, or alternatively, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court certifies that anappeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies plaintiff leave toappeal informa pauperis. (scot, )

Download PDF
Trammell v. Caudill et al Doc. 4 Case 1:06-cv-00129-SAS-TSB Document 4 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION James Trammell, Plaintiff vs David R. Caudill, Jr., et al., Defendants ORDER (Spiegel, J.) Case No. 1:06cv129 This action is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. It appears from plaintiff's affidavit that he lacks the funds to pay the costs or give security for such costs. The Court therefore grants the motion and hereby authorizes commencement of this action without prepayment of fees or costs. This matter is also before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 804, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a "litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328- Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00129-SAS-TSB Document 4 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 2 of 3 29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or "wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. Congress has also authorized the dismissal of complaints which fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or which seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii-iii); 1915A(b)(1-2). In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff must allege that the persons engaging in the conduct complained of were acting under color of state law and that this conduct deprived plaintiff of some right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Graham v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 804 F.2d 953, 957 (6th Cir. 1986) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 517 (1984)). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief "if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action against David R. Caudill, the Clermont County, Ohio Clerk of Court, "Judge Haddad Court," "Security Woman," the Union Township Police Department, Stephanie Wyler, Jim McClannahan, and Lisa Banks. Plaintiff's complaint is very difficult to decipher. As best the Court can discern, plaintiff alleges the "Security Woman" framed him on a charge of public indecency, and that defendant McClannahan arrested him on this charge. He alleges "Judge Haddad Court" found him incompetent to stand trial and had him probated. The remaining allegations appear to be a compilation of unintelligible 2 Case 1:06-cv-00129-SAS-TSB Document 4 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 3 of 3 and disjointed thoughts. The Court is unable to discern the type of relief plaintiff is seeking. In this case, plaintiff has failed to assert any claim with an arguable basis in fact or law, or alternatively, has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in this federal court. Plaintiff's factual allegations are virtually incomprehensible and, to the extent intelligible, fail to rise to the level of a violation of federal law. In addition, plaintiff's complaint alleges that both he and the defendants reside in Ohio. Therefore, there is no diversity of citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. There is no logical construction of plaintiff's complaint from which the Court can divine a viable claim against the defendants over which the Court might have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court concludes that plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal as frivolous, or alternatively, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 7, 2006 s/S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge 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?