United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pro se Nicholas Souchlas, a citizen and resident of
Greece, brings this in forma pauperis diversity
action against defendants U.S. Government, Kent State
University (KSU), the KSU Physics Department, Brookhaven
National Laboratory (BNL), and the BNL Physics Department.
alleges in his complaint that he studied physics at KSU from
2001 through 2009. He believes the U.S. system of education
provides F1 visas to foreign students as “cheap high
end labor, ” and that he was treated unfairly and was
unable to publish. He further alleges that KSU and BNL
conspired to have him removed from KSU's physics program
and that he “had to use threats of violence to force
them to extend [his] affiliation with KSU in order to get a
J1 visa and continue working at BNL.” (Doc. No. 1,
Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 5.) Plaintiff left
the United States in 2014 after his employment was reduced
from 50% to 40% and he had “visa problems.”
(Id. ¶ 8.)
seeks damages of $100 million, asserting that the U.S.
government issues F1 visas for cheap foreign labor and that
KSU disregarded its mission statement and its “duties
and responsibilities” to him. (Id. ¶ 10.)
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70
L.Ed.2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (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, 109
S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Lawler v.
Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v.
City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).
requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings
are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the
material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy
federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny
Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir.
1988). District courts are not required to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them.
Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would
“require . . . [the courts] to explore exhaustively all
potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, . . . [and]
would . . . transform the district court from its legitimate
advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out
the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a
party.” Id. (citation omitted).
of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted when it lacks “plausibility in the
complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 564, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The factual
allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the
right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not
required to include detailed factual allegations, but must
provide more than “an unadorned,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). A pleading that
offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading
does not identify a particular legal theory upon which
defendants are claimed to be liable. Instead he simply
provides a factual narrative and generalized claims that he
was mistreated. This places an unfair burden on defendants to
speculate on the potential claims plaintiff may be raising
against them and the defenses they might assert in response.
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
Moreover, even liberally construed, the complaint does not
contain allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might
have a valid claim. See Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of
Educ, , 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (court not
required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal
conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim
the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted
and this action is dismissed under § 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.