United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
reasons that follow, this case is dismissed.
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
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.
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.)
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
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”].) 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).)
Standard of Review
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.
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).
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to ...