Holmes v. Chandler Murphy Swanson
Holmes v. Chandler Murphy Swanson
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
ROGER LEE HOLMES, ) CASE NO. 1:19cv2171 ) PLAINTIFF, ) JUDGE SARA LIOI ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) CHANDLER MURPHY SWANSON, ) ) DEFENDANT. )
Pro se plaintiff Roger Lee Holmes (“Holmes”) filed this action against defendant Chandler Murphy Swanson. The complaint, in its entirety, states: “Kidnapping, displacement theft and abuse lieing [sic] to court and using for personal gain.” He does not indicate the relief he seeks. Holmes also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That motion is granted. I. 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 district 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, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319,
109 S. Ct. 1827,
104 L. Ed. 2d 338(1989); Lawler v. Marshall,
898 F.2d 1196(6th Cir. 1990); 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 on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks plausibility in the complaint. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 564,
127 S. Ct. 1955,
167 L. Ed. 2d 929(2007). A pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 677-78,
129 S. Ct. 1937,
173 L. Ed. 2d 868(2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp.,
550 U.S. at 555. A 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. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard.
Id.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). II. DISCUSSION
To meet basic federal notice pleading requirements, the complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds upon which they rest. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
528 F.3d 426, 437(6th Cir. 2008). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
775 F.2d 1274, 1278(4th Cir. 1985). Holmes’ complaint does not contain facts or identify legal claims. Even liberally construed, the complaint does not meet basic federal notice pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8.
2 III. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Holmes’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2020 i we HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown