United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE.
se plaintiff Jacqueline Thomas has filed in this Court a
civil rights action against Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster
General of the United States; the “Shaker Station
(Management)”; two named individuals; and the United
States Postal Service Equal Employment Opportunity Office
(“EEO”). (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff's allegations in
her complaint are unclear, but appear to relate to a claim
she filed with the EEO in 2011, which was denied because it
presented the same charges as a prior claim and/or was
untimely, and which she contends the “Shaker Management
fasified [sic] (corrupted)” in some procedural
manner “to gain a favorable ruling.” (Doc. 1.)
Plaintiff also has filed a supplemental document. (Doc. 3.)
In it, she adds new individuals as parties; indicates that
her 2011 EEO claim alleged discrimination based on
“[p]erceived disability (scared right eye), race/color
(black) and retaliation (block from filing a timely EEO claim
and not responding to my EEO claims”; and requests as
relief that the Court order the EEO to process her 2011 claim
or reinstate her job with pay. (Doc. 3.)
se pleadings must be liberally construed. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam) (stating
pro se complaints are held to “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”);
see also Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir.
1985) (“The allegations of a pro se habeas petition,
though vague and conclusory, are entitled to a liberal
construction[, ]” and “[t]he appropriate liberal
construction requires active interpretation in some cases to
construe a pro se petition to encompass any allegation
stating federal relief”) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)). But principles requiring generous
construction of pro se pleadings are not without
limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1277 (4th Cir. 1985). District courts are not required to
conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to
construct full-blown claims from sentence fragments.
Id. 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.; see also Erwin v.
Edwards, 22 Fed.Appx. 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001)
(“Although liberal construction requires active
interpretation of the filings of a pro se litigant, . . . it
. . . does not require a court to conjure allegations on a
litigant's behalf . . . .”) (internal citations
federal district courts are required to screen all in
forma pauperis complaints and dismiss before service any
action the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See also Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order
to state a claim, a complaint must set forth
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 471 (applying the dismissal standard
articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007), to dismissals for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). The “allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . .
.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. They also must be
sufficient to give defendants “fair notice of what [the
plaintiff's] claims are and the grounds upon which they
rest.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.
506, 514 (2002).
construing Plaintiff's complaint and supplemental
document liberally, she has not met basic pleading
requirements or stated a claim upon which relief may be
granted. The Complaint does not set forth coherent factual
allegations, recognizable legal grounds, or a request for
relief sufficient to state any plausible federal claim
against the named defendants. Specifically, it does not
present any factual or legal basis for her discrimination
claims against the U.S. Postal Service beyond conclusory
assertions. The complaint, therefore, must be dismissed
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Lillard v. Shelby
Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a
court is not required to accept summary allegations or
unwarranted conclusions in determining whether a complaint
states a claim for relief); Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 92 Fed.Appx. 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (where a
person is named as a defendant in a case without an
allegation of specific conduct, a complaint is subject to
dismissal even under the liberal construction afforded
pro se pleadings).
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. 2) is granted, and her Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ...