Carter v. Clerk of Court of Columbus Franklin et al

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Anna M. Vines Carter. It is further recommended that this case be dismissed as frivilous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). Objections to R&R due by 12/1 2/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 11/25/2014. (agm1) (This document has been sent by the Clerks Office by regular and certified mail (7009 2820 0003 5795 7873) to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) Modified to include certified mailing information on 11/25/2014 (agm1).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Anna M. Vines Carter,
Plaintiff,

:
:

v.

:
:

Clerk of Court,
et al.,

Case No. 2:14-cv-2344
JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM
Magistrate Judge Kemp

:

Defendants.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Anna M. Vines Carter, a non-prisoner pro se
litigant, filed this action asking for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.

Ms. Carter qualifies financially for in forma pauperis

status, so her motion for leave to proceed (Doc. 1) is granted.
However, the Court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed
as frivolous.
I.
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma
pauperis, “[t]he court shall dismiss the case if ... (B) the
action ... is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim
on which relief can be granted....”

The purpose of this section

is to prevent suits which are a waste of judicial resources and
which a paying litigant would not initiate because of the costs
involved.

See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).

A

complaint may be dismissed as frivolous only when the plaintiff
fails to present a claim with an arguable or rational basis in
law or fact.

See id. at 325.

Claims which lack such a basis

include those for which the defendants are clearly entitled to
immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which
does not exist, see id. at 327-28, and “claims describing
fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal

district judges are all too familiar.”

Id. at 328; see also

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992).

A complaint may not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Pro se complaints are to be

construed liberally in favor of the pro se party.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

See Haines v.

The Court is required to review Ms.

Carter’s complaint under these standards.
II.
Ms. Carter’s complaint is essentially incomprehensible.

She

names the “Clark Court of Columbus Franklin” as the defendant,
with an address of 375 S. High Street, which building houses the
Franklin County Municipal Court.

She refers to a date of “11-16-

12" in her complaint and to some other entities such as Mt.
Carmel Hospital and Riverside Hospital.

As best the Court can

determine, she complains that the state court used an incorrect
name in connection with state court cases involving the Plaintiff
and these entities.

She asserts her correct name (based on the

Court’s reading of her handwriting, which is somewhat difficult
to decipher) is “Gold Seal Under Document Ordered Cardional
Bishop Rites Religious Server Anna M. Vines Carter.”

Her

complaint does not appear to ask for any specific relief, but she
indicated on the civil cover sheet (which is not part of the
complaint) that she is seeking damages in the amount of
$6,666,666 trillion.
A fundamental problem with the complaint is its failure to
address the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction.

The complaint

names a state actor, the Clerk of some state court, but does not
indicate why the Court might have jurisdiction over whatever
claim Plaintiff appears to be making.

Even if there were some

jurisdictional basis, however, the complaint is not a short and
-2-

plain statement of a claim, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), nor does it
allege any facts which might plausibly state a claim under
federal or state law.

See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), holding that a complaint must contain
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face."
In other cases filed by this Plaintiff (and she has filed
more than a dozen cases in this Court), the Court has been very
liberal in granting her an opportunity to amend her complaint to
attempt either to state a cognizable claim or explain why the
Court has jurisdiction.

However, she has never done so, and

there is no reason to think that she could or would do so here.
Therefore, the Court recommends that this new case be dismissed
as frivolous.
III.
For all of these reasons, the motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (#1) is granted.

It is further recommended that

this case be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).
IV.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file
and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,
together with supporting authority for the objection(s).

A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.

Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,
may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object

-3-

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the district judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the
right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the
Report and Recommendation.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-