United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
J. Bowman, M.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge
separate Order issued this date, Plaintiff Timothy Lahey has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The complaint itself is
now before the Court for a sua sponte review 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the
reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the
complaint be dismissed.
General Screening Authority
has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint if satisfied that the action is
frivolous or malicious. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 31 (1992); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1915(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).
has also authorized the sua sponte dismissal of
complaints which fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii).
Although a plaintiff's pro se complaint must be
“liberally construed” and “held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,
” the complaint must “give the defendant fair
notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), and Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal
citation and quotation omitted)). 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 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570);
see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th
Cir. 2010)(“dismissal standard articulated in
Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim” under §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)).
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. Allain, 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 (quoting
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.
plaintiffs in this case are identified as Patricia Lynn Lahey
and Timothy Peter Lahey; however, only Timothy Lahey has
signed the in forma pauperis application and the
complaint. A pro se Plaintiff cannot represent the interests
of another pro se party. Based on the lack of a signature on
the complaint by Patricia Lahey as required under both Rule
11, Fed.R.Civ.P. and local rules of civil procedure, Timothy
Peter Lahey is considered to be the sole Plaintiff.
statement of claim is difficult to decipher, largely
consisting of a list of presumed educational accomplishments
of the Plaintiff (and/or those of his relatives), and a list
of several books. In the section asking Plaintiff to describe
“exactly what you want the court to do for you, ”
Plaintiff has written “Imprisonment and Fines Patricia
Lynn Lahey Monetary Relief Patricia Lynn Lahey Timothy Peter
Lahey.” (Doc. 1-1 at 4). Attached to the complaint as
an exhibit is a copy of a Bellevue, Washington Police
Department Incident Report dated March 11, 2018, which
document identifies Defendant Bill Gates as the
“Registered Owner” of a Washington nursing home.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
has failed to assert any claim over which this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Gates is alleged to be a
resident of Washington, while Plaintiff alleges that he is a
resident of Ohio. To the extent that the parties appear to be
residents of different states, it is possible that Plaintiff
is invoking the diversity jurisdiction of this Court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, the lack of
allegations in general, including but not limited to the lack
of any allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
000, renders untenable the exercise of diversity
jurisdiction. In addition, nothing in the complaint or
attached exhibit identifies any particular constitutional or
federal law under which this Court might consider the
exercise of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, assuming the absence of diversity jurisdiction.
Failure to State a Clam
the basis for any claims asserted, the police report attached
as an exhibit to the complaint offers scant additional clues.
The narrative portion of the report states, in relevant part:
“Cyber FORTRAN TARGETED AT VICTIM PATRICIA LAHEY DURING
ADMISSION in NURSING CENTER 2013-2015, IBM THE CENTURY 2009
SMARTEST PLANET Corporate Book.” Aside from the cursory
references to Defendant Gates and Patricia Lahey, neither the