United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
PATRICIA K. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
JEFF MCCLAIN, et al., Defendants.
A. Sargus, Jr. Chief Judge
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Patricia K. Davis, an Ohio resident proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, has submitted a request to file a
civil action in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) The
Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to
proceed in forma pauperis. All judicial officers who
render services in this action shall do so as if the costs
had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of
Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of
Plaintiff's Complaint, or any portion of it, which 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). Having performed the initial screen, for the
reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that
the Court DISMISS this action for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma
pauperis statute, seeking to “lower judicial
access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). In doing so, however,
“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.'” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this
concern, Congress included subsection (e), which provides in
pertinent part as follows:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case
at any time if the court determines that--
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii);
Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e)
requires sua sponte dismissal of an action upon the
Court's determination that the action is frivolous or
malicious, or upon determination that the action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
to properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a
plaintiff must satisfy the basic federal pleading
requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a). See also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal
and factual demands on the authors of
complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd.,
P'Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727
F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013).
this pleading standard does not require
“‘detailed factual allegations,' . . . [a]
pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action, '” is insufficient. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A
complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Instead, to survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Facial plausibility is
established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. “The plausibility of an inference depends
on a host of considerations, including common sense and the
strength of competing explanations for the defendant's
conduct.” Flagstar Bank , 727 F.3d at 504
(citations omitted). Further, the Court holds pro se
complaints “‘to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Garrett
v. Belmont Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't., 374 Fed.Appx.
612, 614 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). This lenient treatment, however,
has limits; “‘courts should not have to guess at
the nature of the claim asserted.'” Frengler v.
Gen. Motors, 482 Fed.Appx. 975, 976-77 (6th Cir. 2012)
(quoting Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.
Complaint, Plaintiff identifies herself as “one of the
Sovereign people who hold all political power according to
Art., Sec. 2 of the Ohio constitution.” (Compl.
¶ 5, ECF No. 1-1.) As such, Plaintiff alleges,
she “may keep the fruits of her labor without
taxation.” (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff names
individuals who work for the Ohio Department of Taxation and
the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as
defendants, alleging that their collection of taxes or
attempts to collect taxes ...