OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. No. 1]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Pro se Plaintiff Kanonie Hall filed this action against "696-KIDS, " "moral claims, " Juvenile Court, the Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority ("CMHA"), Fatherhood Initiative, the Cuyahoga Community College aka "Tri-C, " Chief Warren, the Illuminating Company, the City of Euclid, Parking Violation Bureau, and Joseph Landis School. In the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to several seemingly unrelated events that occurred in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2012. He seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Application is granted.
Plaintiff lists several incidents which occurred over the span of seven years, and which do not appear to be connected. His Complaint, at times, is illegible and his allegations are not clearly stated. First, he mentions parking tickets he received in 2005 and 2006 from the City of Cleveland. He provides a computer print-out which suggests the fines for these unpaid tickets totaled $900.00. Plaintiff is paying them off in installments.
Plaintiff then indicates he was residing at a house in Euclid, Ohio in 2007. He claimed he knew a builder who performed custom cabinet work in the house and who arranged for Plaintiff to rent the property. Plaintiff claims the owner did not pay the mortgage and the property went into foreclosure. Plaintiff suggests there may have been a dispute over his authority to occupy the home. He refers to a subsequent court hearing in which he produced rental receipts to convince the judge that the homeowner was lying. He alleges the electricity in the home was turned off on September 20, 2007 due to non-payment of the bill.
Plaintiff claims Euclid police came to the property to arrest him September 27, 2007 for failing to pay a court-ordered fine on a traffic ticket. He also suggests he was removed from the home over a dispute concerning whether he was an actual tenant in the foreclosed property. He contends the officers treated him roughly during the arrest and told him social workers were on their way to the library to pick up his daughters. He indicates that in his absence, the officers permitted the children's mother to go into the home and collect the girl's possessions. He states he was released six days later, after pleading no contest to charges related to his arrest, and returned home to find a sticker on the door saying the residence was uninhabitable. He claims he called a commissioner who told him he could no longer reside there. He contends he was never properly evicted.
Plaintiff indicates he filed a complaint with the Euclid Police Department on October 8, 2007, and shortly thereafter was arrested at the house from which he had been removed. He claims the officers were angry with him and an altercation ensued during which the officers discharged their tazers at Plaintiff. He was charged with resisting arrest and criminal trespass. He pled no contest to criminal trespass in exchange for the dismissal of the charge for resisting arrest.
Plaintiff also includes emails he sent to an individual at the Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority ("CMHA") in September 2007 attempting to gain work as a general contractor to rehabilitate vacant homes. Plaintiff does not indicate whether he ever received an answer to his emails. He alleges in his Complaint that CMHA did not help him to obtain section eight housing.
Finally, Plaintiff indicates he was unable to finish his degree at Cuyahoga Community College because he was convicted of a felony. He claims he went to prison for some length of time. He also contends his van was sold and demolished and he was not given an opportunity to retrieve drawings, and tools from the vehicle. He attaches a letter from the Dean of Student Affairs at Cuyahoga Community College dated November 1, 2012. The letter indicates Plaintiff's community patron access to the school was revoked because his log-in credentials were used by someone who openly engaged in criminal activity on a college computer. His presence on campus is limited to official business. He was told he could not solicit staff or students for job references, transportation or food.
II. Legal Standard
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 in forma pauperis 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). An action has no arguable basis in law when a defendant is immune from suit or when a plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or "wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199.
When determining whether the Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, accept all factual allegations as true, and determine whether the Complaint contains "enough fact to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds for relief "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. Although a Complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, its "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true." Id. The Court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). The Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-678 (2009), further explains the "plausibility" requirement, stating that "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." Iqbal, 556 ...