United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff filed this action against twenty-seven
Defendants, which include the United States Department of
Treasury, the State of Ohio, four Municipalities, four
Judges, one Bailiff, one Court Clerk, eleven Police Officers
and four people without official titles. The 111 page
Complaint is composed almost entirely of incoherent and
meaningless rhetoric. He does not assert a viable legal cause
of action. He seeks $ 1, 000, 000, 000.00 in damages.
also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(ECF No. 2). That Motion is granted.
Complaint is composed of various meaningless documents
through which Plaintiff appears to be attempting to create a
security interest in himself as the debtor and creditor. He
asks this Court to declare him to be his only creditor on the
theory that he is the only one to have invested in himself.
He theorizes that as the only creditor, no one else can have
a debt against him, including the Internal Revenue Service.
He refers to liens and levies he is attempting to file. He
further states, without any explanation, that unspecified
police listed him as armed and dangerous. He indicated he
scraped his back on handcuffs. He states he scratched his leg
and got bed sores. He states without explanation that police
officers flattened his tires and he spent two days in
segregation in the Lorain County Jail because he was talking.
He does not assert any recognizable legal causes of action.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
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's Complaint fails to meet basic notice
pleading requirements. He does not mention any of the
Defendants in the documents comprising the Complaint, nor
does he specify any legal cause of action entitling him to
relief. The Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of
what the Plaintiff's claims are and the factual grounds
upon which they rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008).
This pleading does neither of those things. It fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(ECF No. 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 appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.