United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. NO. 1]
S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Secunda Ann Williams filed this action
against the First Realty Property Management Company
(“First Realty”). The Complaint is largely
incoherent. It appears Plaintiff is claiming First Realty has
not forwarded rent collected for multiple condominiums;
however, she does not suggest what legal interest, if any,
she has in these properties. She indicates she is the
administrator and only beneficiary of her mother's
estate, which consisted solely of the proceeds from a
wrongful death lawsuit. She also references a foreclosure but
indicates it is not related to any of these properties.
Plaintiff asserts violations of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951, and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §
1961. She does not specify the relief she seeks.
the Court does not hold pro se pleadings to the same
standard as those filed by attorneys, 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. A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact when it is based on an unquestionably meritless legal
theory or when the factual allegations are clearly
baseless. A cause of action fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted when it does not contain
enough facts to suggest Plaintiff has a plausible claim that
entitles her to the relief she seeks. This does not mean she is
required to allege the facts of her Complaint in great
detail, but she still must provide more than “an
accusation.” A Complaint that offers only legal
conclusions or a simple listing of the elements of a cause of
action will not meet this standard. When reviewing the Complaint
under § 1915(e), the Court must read it in a way that is
the most favorable to the Plaintiff.
fails to state a claim under either of the two statutes she
cites in her Complaint. The Hobbs Act is a criminal statute
pertaining to robbery or extortion affecting interstate
commerce. It does not give rise to a private right
of action in a civil case. While RICO does provide a private right
of action, it requires the Plaintiff to allege that a person,
associated with an enterprise that is engaged in interstate
commerce, conducted or participated in the affairs of the
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity. Under RICO, a business or corporation
cannot be both the “person” responsible for
violation of the statute and the alleged criminal
“enterprise” itself. Plaintiff does not
include facts suggesting the existence of an enterprise
separate from First Realty's own employees or agents.
Furthermore, RICO requires Plaintiff to identify a
“pattern of racketeering activity.” A pattern
requires at least two acts. Here, Plaintiff does not
allege First Realty engaged in any racketeering activity.
this action is dismissed under 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
 See the Estate of Annie Lee
Williams, No. 2015 EST209039 (Cuyahoga Cty Probate Ct.
filed July 27, 2015.
 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319
(1989); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d
194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Lawler v. Marshall, 898
F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990).
 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677-78 (2009).