Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Szarell v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

August 21, 2019

DANIELLE-NICHOL SZARELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, et al., DEFENDANTS.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pro se plaintiff Dannielle Nichol Szarell (“Szarell”) brings this action against the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, ADM, Community Support Services, Northcoast Behavioral Health Institution, and the Summit County Jail. (Doc. No. 1 [“Compl.”].) Szarell moves to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2), and that motion is granted.

         For the reasons that follow, this case is dismissed.

         I. Background

         The content of Szarell's complaint is sparse and difficult to discern. The statement of her claim consists entirely of a list of federal and Ohio statutes. (Compl. at 5.[1]) She alleges no facts concerning the conduct of each defendant relative to the listed federal and state statutes. For relief, she seeks restitution by compensation for medical costs, out-of-pocket expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, jail bond, and false imprisonment. (Id. at 6.)

         In addition to the complaint, Szarell filed a “memorandum” regarding a criminal case in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, No. CR-2011-04-1079 (State of Ohio v. Danielle Nicole Smith) (“Criminal Case”) and Ninth District Court of Appeals No. 28102, State v. Danielle Nichol Smith, C.A. No. 28123, 2017 WL 1450519 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2017) (collectively, “Ohio court proceedings”). (Doc. No. 3 [“Mem.”].) In the memorandum, Szarell asserts challenges to the Criminal Case, including “Bogus/Fabricated charges” and failure to receive Miranda rights when arrested by the Stow Police Department, so Szarell “was oblivious I was being arrested.” (Id. at 28, 30.)

         Szarell then filed a supplemental memorandum (Doc. No. 4 [“Supp. Mem.”].) In the supplemental memorandum, Szarell alleges that the Summit County Court of Common Pleas has abused its power and is “liable to be dissolved, ” and designates Dustin David Szarell to receive property taken from Szarell by that court. (Id. at 34-36.)

         Most recently, Szarell filed a document containing multiple captions as follows: “Writ of Motion to Dismiss, Quo Warranto, Notice of Demand, Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Doc. No. 5 [“Writ”].)[2] In the writ, Szarell states that “[t]his writ is issued by common right pursuant to God's law (Common Law) as applicable to this case, against Children Services … attempting to deny custody, by collusion … to [Danielle-Nichol Szarell] and [Dustin-David Szarell] without just cause or either in good faith. (Id. at 4 (emphasis removed).)

         II. Discussion

         A. Standard of Review

         Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (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, lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised upon an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

         The dismissal standard for Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) articulated in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) governs dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to state a plausible claim, a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. 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. 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) (citing Sistrunk, 99 F.3d at 197).

         B. Analysis

         The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.