United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Diego Tunstal filed this action on behalf
of himself and two of his minor children, against Officer
Jeffrey Parnell, the Cleveland Police Department, the
Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department, and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). In the Complaint
(Doc. # 1), Tunstal contends various officers employed by the
Defendants have collided with his vehicle during
surveillance. He does not specify the relief he seeks.
also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. #2). That Application is granted.
Complaint is brief. He claims he was arrested in February
2011 and was “abused by police.” (Doc. #1 at 1).
He alleges various officers of the Cleveland Police
Department, the Cuyahoga Sheriff's Department, and the
FBI went to his medical appointments and posed as employees
at his jobs. He contends an officer collided with his truck
in 2012. He contends Officer Parnell posed as a doctor to
question him and on February 15, 2015, backed into his
vehicle. He asserts no legal cause of action and does not
specify the relief he is requesting from this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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
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.
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 facts 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).
Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78
(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 U.S. at 678. Furthermore, “the
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a Defendant acted unlawfully.”
Id. This determination is a “context-specific
task that requires the reviewing Court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Id.
initial matter, Tunstal cannot bring claims on behalf of his
children. In general, a party may plead and conduct his or
her case in person or through a licensed attorney.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Eagle Associates v.
Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir.
1991). An adult litigant who wishes to proceed
pro se must personally sign the Complaint to invoke
this Court's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §
1654; Steelman v. Thomas, No. 87-6260, 1988 WL 54071
(6th Cir. May 26, 1988). A minor child must appear through
counsel and cannot be represented by a non-attorney, even if
the non-attorney is the child's parent. Meeker v.
Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986); Lawson
v. Edwardsburg Public School, 751 F.Supp. 1257 (W.D.
Mich. 1990). Tunstal is not a licensed attorney and therefore
is not authorized to represent any of the children in court.
He can only represent himself in this matter.
however, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Although the standard of review is liberal for
pro se pleadings, it requires more than bare
assertions of legal conclusions. Lillard v. Shelby County
Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726-27 (6th Cir.1996). The
Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the
Plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they
rest. Id. at 726; Bassett v. National Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008).
Tunstal does not specify a cause of action and none is
apparent on the face of the Complaint. He does not specify
the relief he seeks. This pleading does not include
sufficient information to establish this Court's subject
matter jurisdiction or meet the basic pleading requirements
of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8.
Tunstal's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. #2) is granted and 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