United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, brings this pro se civil
action against Werner Enterprises. By separate Order,
plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter
is before the Court for a sua sponte review of plaintiffs
complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion
of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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).
enacting the original in forma pauperis statute,
Congress recognized that a "litigant whose filing fees
and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying
litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing
frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits."
Denton v, Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To
prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized
federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous
or malicious. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C.
§§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed
as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a
rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also
Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990).
An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is
immune from suit or when 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, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at
1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations
that are "fantastic or delusional" in reviewing a
complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 328).
also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of
complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A
complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be
"liberally construed" and "held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, the
complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also
Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 ("dismissal standard
articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs
dismissals for failure to state a claim" under
§§ l9l5A(b)(1) and l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not
"accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting
Papasan v. Attain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual
allegations," it must provide "more than an
accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers
"labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders "naked
assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual
enhancement." Id. at 557. The complaint must
"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
pro se complaint alleges, verbatim, "I try to get my
license clean so I can have the job I love and back to the
school." (Doc. 1-2 at 4).
allegations are insufficient to state a claim with an
arguable basis in law over which this federal Court has
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs complaint provides no
factual content or context from which the Court may
reasonably infer that the named defendant violated plaintiffs
rights. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted against the defendant and
should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
Plaintiffs complaint be DISMISSED with
Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for
the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this
Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith
and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed
in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See
Callihan v. Schneider,178 F.3d 800, 803 ...