Cottman v. Carespring, Inc. et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint re 12 be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Objections to R&R due by 10/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/13/2017. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 1:17-CV-170
CARESPRING, INC., et ai.,
Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, brings this pro se civil action against Carespring,
Inc., and its employees. By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed informa
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review
of plaintiffs 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. 28 U.S.C.
In enacting the original informa 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
also 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, 328-29 (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
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?