Page v. Juhola

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER: Magistrate Judge GRANTS 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, RECOMMENDS DISMISSING 2 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 8/18/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 8/4/2017. (ew) Modified mailing details on 8/4/2017 (ew).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ELLEN PAGE,

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-644
Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Jolson

MICHAEL JUHOLA,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ellen Page, an Ohio resident who is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel, brings this action against Michael Juhola. This matter is before the undersigned for
consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) and the
initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial officers who
render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C . § 1915(a).
Furthermore, having performed an initial screen and for the reasons that follow, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims as frivolous.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the Complaint,

or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). “A claim is frivolous if it lacks ‘an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Flores
v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No. 2:14-CV-84, 2014 WL 358460, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2014), (citing
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). This occurs when “indisputably meritless” legal

theories underlie the complaint, or when a complaint relies on “fantastic or delusional”
allegations. Id. (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327–28).
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe it in Plaintiff’s favor, accept all wellpleaded 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).
However, a court is not required to accept factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true
when such factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325
F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 2009). “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). In sum, 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).
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s one-page Complaint contains rambling and incoherent statements.

generally Doc. 1-2).

(See

Although portions are slightly illegible, the Court deciphered the

Complaint, in its entirety, as follows:
Michael got his history for the medical opinion; he says he has; from collusion.
This is the basis for the NONCOMPLIANT charge.
Marian Reis was chief cousin and chief friend and chief confidant of mom. When
something was out-of-order for mom; Marian was chief deputy clerk for probate
judge of Tuscarawas County. Marian would personally frame me for behavior for
psychiatric assessment and medication. Those charges went all the way through
the growth period and were too early in life for respectable diagnosing.
When mom’s POA wanted to back out; she hired Michael to set up his own
hearing, and magistrate, and attorneys and testimony for incompetence change to
place himself as guardian.
2

None of his care conferences nor hearings were even legal. Michael never cared
for anything for the Guardianee. He only ever approved to steal all the monies. It
left me bankrupt.
(Id. at 3). Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of the Court “secur[ing] all of the Defendant’s money
for the Plaintiff.” (Id. at 4).
Plaintiff’s Complaint provides no factual content or context from which the Court could
reasonably infer that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights. See Vehr v. Ohio Dep’t of Parks
Recreation Wildlife, No. 2:13-CV-836, 2013 WL 4679073, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2013).
Instead, these allegations rise to the level of being “clearly irrational.” See Flores, 2014 WL
358460, at *3. Because Plaintiff’s allegations set forth no legal theory and are premised on
irrational allegations, the undersigned finds Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for
relief. Consequently, it is recommended that this action be dismissed as frivolous.
III.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

However, having

performed an initial screen and for the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the
Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint as frivolous.
Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) 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
3

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 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 4, 2017

/s/Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4