Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kanonie Nelson Hall v. Euclid Police Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION


March 3, 2011

KANONIE NELSON HALL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
EUCLID POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Sara Lioi

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff pro se Kanonie Nelson Hall filed this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Euclid Police Department, 696 Kids, Glenville Neighborhood Services, Euclid Collaborative, A.C.L.U., Euclid Building Department, Juvenile Court, CMHA, Donley Construction, Marous Brothers, Senator Sherrod Brown, Child Support Agency, Cleveland Police Department and Brittany Henry, HHS. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2).

The file consists of a one-page handwritten Complaint, preceded by what appears to be a cover letter, along with 107 pages of Exhibits.*fn1 Although the Complaint is difficult to read, it appears to state in full:

I love my American people. I have been done wrong. I want no trouble. This is a great country and city. Just give me back what was taken and what was never given. Plaintiff seeks [illegible] asap. (Doc. No. 1, p. 2.)

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).

Clearly, this Complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8, even under the liberal standards afforded pro se pleadings. There is no statement of plaintiff's claim or claims against each of the named defendants and nothing to explain how the various exhibits attached to the Complaint are even relevant or might support a legitimate claim.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED.

HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.