United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
Eric A. Grimes, Plaintiff,
Wade Kapszukiewicz,, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ZOUHARY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se Eric Grimes brings this Amended Complaint
(Doc. 6) against Defendants Lucas County Treasurer Wade
Kapszukiewicz and the United States. Grimes alleges his
property was improperly sold at a Sheriff's sale to
satisfy a tax debt (id. at 2). He further alleges
the debt was never validated, and Defendants demanded payment
but refused to provide a bond showing the tax liability
(id.). He claims he is entitled to redemption under
Article VI of the Constitution and the International Bill of
Human Rights, as well as recoupment under the Uniform
Commercial Code and the “Securities and Exchange
cites the following additional authorities, in summary
fashion, in support of the Amended Complaint: 12 U.S.C.
§ 411 (authorizing issuance and redemption of federal
reserve notes); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2 (antitrust laws),
78ff (penalties for violation of securities exchange laws),
& 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act); 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3 (accessory after the fact), 241 (conspiracy),
242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), 1001 (making
false statements), 1002 (possession of false papers to
defraud the United States), 1512 (witness tampering), &
1961 (racketeering); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985
(civil rights); 26 U.S.C. § 6110 (public inspection of
written tax determinations); United States Constitution
Article I, clause 10 and Article VI, clause 2; the Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; and Articles 2, 8,
12, and 17 of the International Bill of Human Rights. Grimes
also moves to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).
Though his application is somewhat lacking in detail, Grimes
swears under penalty of perjury that he is unemployed and
unable to afford the filing fee. The information he does
provide suggests this is true, as his basic living expenses
appear to exceed his monthly income. Accordingly, the Motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted --
but this Court cautions Grimes to exercise more care in
completing the required paperwork, should he find himself in
court in the future.
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam).
But “[e]ven a pro se pleading must provide the opposing
party with notice of the relief sought, and it is not within
the purview of the district court to conjure up claims never
presented.” Frengler v. General Motors, 482 F.
App'x 975, 977 (6th Cir. 2012). See also Wells v.
Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (“The trial and appellate
courts should not have to guess at the nature of the claim
asserted.”). This Court therefore must dismiss an
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted or lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). .
Court construes the Amended Complaint in the light most
favorable to Grimes, accepts all factual allegations as true,
and determines whether the Amended Complaint 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 complaint need not
include detailed factual allegations, but it must provide
more than “an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A
complaint that merely offers legal conclusions or a simple
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet
this pleading standard. Id.
the Amended Complaint consists of a single paragraph of vague
factual allegations and legal conclusions, followed by a list
of federal statutes, Constitutional provisions, and
international treaty provisions under the heading
“Violations” (Doc. 6 at 2-3). Construed
liberally, these scattered allegations and citations fail to
state a plausible claim for relief. For example, the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not apply to any
state or federal officers or employees collecting debts
during the course of their official duties. See 15
U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Some of the cited authorities address
conduct -- such as the issuance and redemption of federal
reserve notes, 12 U.S.C. § 411 -- that does not appear
relevant to the allegedly improper sale of Grimes'
property. Others -- e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 3,
241, 242, 1001, 1002, 1512 -- are criminal statutes that do
not provide a private right of action in a civil proceeding.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act
does authorize a private right of action,
see 18 U.S.C. § 1964, but Grimes alleges no
facts plausibly suggesting Defendants have committed RICO
violations. Nor does he allege any facts reasonably
suggesting he might have a viable claim against Defendants
for antitrust violations under 15 U.S.C. Chapters 1 and 2,
securities violations under 15 U.S.C. § 78, violation of
due process or other Constitutional rights, or breach of any
“contract” between the United States and the
United Nations. In short, the Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The
Motions to Set Trial and for Hearing (Doc. 3) and for
Discovery (Doc. 4) are denied as moot. The Motion for
Extension of Time (Doc. 5) filed by the United States is also
denied as moot. The Court certifies that an appeal ...