Smith v. Watson et al
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION in that it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous and for failing to state a claim. Plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Objections to R&R due by 2/17/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 2/3/17. (sem)(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
REVEREND REGINA JUNIOR SMITH,
Case No. 2:17-CV-00073-ALM
JUDGE ALGENON MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Jolson
MICHAEL H WATSON, et al.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1). The Court GRANTS the
Motion. However, because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must conduct an
initial screen of the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss the
Complaint, “or any portion of the complaint,” if it determines that the Complaint or claim is
frivolous or 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. Id. Applying those standards here, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL.
In her incomprehensible Complaint, Plaintiff lists dozens of statutes and constitutional
amendments and has named 100 Defendants.
Standard of Review
As noted above, the Court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and to dismiss
any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
In reviewing the Complaint to determine its sufficiency, the Court must construe it in
favor of Plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it
contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). On the other hand, a complaint that consists of “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555). Although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “basic pleading essentials” are still required. Wells v. Brown, 891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
A. The Complaint Is Frivolous And Fails To State A Claim
Even giving Plaintiff every benefit of the doubt, the Complaint fails to state a claim and
is frivolous. It incoherently cites statutes (many of them criminal) and does not tie any of the
allegations to particular Defendants. Plaintiff also seeks entirely inappropriate relief, including
the death penalty for the former President of the United States, the Ohio Attorney General, and
dozens of judges. Consequently, the Complaint is frivolous, fails on its face, and should be
While immunity need not be considered here because the Complaint fails on its face, the
undersigned notes that nearly all of the named Defendants would be immune from suit because
of presidential, judicial, or prosecutorial immunity. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756
(1982) (presidential immunity); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judicial immunity);
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity).
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED, and it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED as
frivolous and for failing to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 3, 2017
/s/Kimbery A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?