United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Stanley James Houston filed this action
against the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
(“GCRTA”), claiming that he has received numerous
tickets for nonpayment of fares when he qualifies for reduced
fares as a disabled person. He indicates he has the right of
freedom of speech and is covered by the Bill of Rights in the
United States Constitution. He does not indicate the relief
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 the Defendant is
immune from suit or when the 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.
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 (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 (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. Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to
include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more
than “an unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this
pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the
Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable
to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds,
Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
case, Plaintiff fails to identify a plausible federal cause
of action in his Complaint. It is possible Plaintiff may be
attempting to assert a claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Title II of the ADA prohibits a public
entity from discriminating against disabled individuals and
states that “no qualified individual with a disability
shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from
participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected
to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. §
12132. The term “public entity” is defined, in
relevant part, as “any State or local
government.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A).
appears to allege that he was ticketed for failing to pay all
or part of his transit fares. He contends GCRTA offers
reduced fares to senior citizens and disabled individuals and
provides a blank application form with his Complaint. He
alleges he is entitled to reduced fares due to his
disability, but he does not elaborate on his condition that
he believes qualifies as a disability or whether he was
approved by GCRTA for the fare reduction. He does not
describe any incidents with respect to fare payment. He does
not indicate that the mode of transportation he intended to
take was inaccessible to him or denied to him due to his
disability. He does not allege facts to suggest GCRTA
violated the ADA.
extent Plaintiff intended to assert some other claim, it is
not apparent on the face of the Complaint. Although the
standard of review is liberal for pro se pleadings,
it still requires the Plaintiff to give the Defendant fair
notice of what the Plaintiff's claims are and the factual
grounds upon which they rest. Id. at 726;
Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n,
528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). This Complaint does not
meet these basic pleading requirements.
the Court takes notice that this is Plaintiff's twentieth
case filed in this District Court to be dismissed at the
pleading stage for failing to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Two other cases are still
pending. Up to this point, the Courts in this
District have been tolerant of Plaintiff's pro
se filings; however, there comes a point when the Court
can no longer allow Plaintiff to misuse the judicial system
at tax payer expense. Every paper that is filed with the
Clerk of Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous,
requires some portion of the Court's limited resources to
address it. A part of the Court's responsibility is to
see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes
the interests of justice. In re McDonald, 489 U.S.
180, 184 (1989). The Court's ability to perform its
duties is compromised when the Court must devote these
limited resources to the processing of repetitious and
frivolous filings. In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177,
179-80 (1991). After a careful review of Plaintiff's
conduct in this and other cases filed in the Northern
District of Ohio, this Court has determined that it is
necessary to impose some restrictions on Plaintiff's
ability to continue in this manner.
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 appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith. Furthermore, Plaintiff is enjoined from
filing any additional cases in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Ohio, without first seeking and
obtaining leave of court. The Clerk's Office shall not
accept, and shall return unfiled, any documents or pleadings
except a Motion Seeking Leave to File an Action, unless and
until leave is granted.
 See Houston v. University
Hosp., No. 1:17 CV 1269 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 28,
2017)(Oliver, J.); Houston v. U.S. Fed. Aids, No.
1:17 CV 712 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2017)(Oliver, J.);
Houston v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:17 CV 111 (N.D. Ohio
Mar. 1, 2017)(Oliver, J.); Houston v. Cuyahoga Cty
Probate Ct., No. 1:16 CV 1206 (N.D. Ohio June 15,
2016)(Nugent, J.); Houston v. Cuyahoga Cty Comm. Pl.
Ct., No. 1:16 CV 75 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2016)(Oliver,
J.); Houston v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:16 CV 74
(N.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2016)(Nugent, J.); Houston v. Ohio
Mental Health Serv., No. 1:16 CV 28 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 7,
2016)(Oliver, J.); Houston v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
1:15 CV 2079 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2015)(Oliver, J.);
Houston v. Cuyahoga Cty Probate Dept.., No. 1:14 CV
2441 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2015)(Gwin, J.); Houston v. Soc.
Sec. Admin., No. 1:11 CV 2297 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 5,
2012)(Boyko, J.); Houston v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
1:06 CV 2995 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2007)(Adams, J.);
Houston v. Cuyahoga Cty. Justice Cntr., No. 1:04 CV
2355 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 20, 2005)(O'Malley, J.); Houston
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Justice Cntr., No. 1:04 CV 507 (N.D.
Ohio May 3, 2004)(Wells, J.); Houston v. Shaker Hts. Mun.
Ct., No. 1:04 CV 326 (Mar. 29, 2004)(Nugent, J.);
Houston v. Warden, No. 1:03 CV 754 (N.D. Ohio June
17, 2003)(Wells, J.) Houston v. Inmate Health
Services, No. 1:03 CV 663 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 1,
2003)(Wells, J.); Houston v. Cuyahoga Cty Comm. Pl.
Ct., No. 1:03 CV 525 (N.D. Ohio May 13, 2003)(Gaughan,
J.); Houston v. Sensession, No. 3:97 CV 7605 (N.D.
Ohio Nov. 17, 1997)(Katz, J.); Houston v. Allen Corr.
Inst., No. 3:97 CV 7599 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 1997)(Carr,
See Houston v. Cleveland Clinic
Medical Arts and Admin, Records, Charts and Pharmacy,
No. 1:18 CV 705 (N.D. Ohio filed Mar. 28, 2018)(Boyko, J.);
Houston v. Mental Health Services of Northeastern of
Ohio, No. 1:18 CV 939 ...