UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Salih Abdul Malik Al-Bey, Case No. 3:22-cv-02159 aka Darrick Newsome, Jr., aka Darrick E. Newsome, aka Derrick E. Newsome,

Plaintiff

v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Lori L. Olender, et al.

Defendants

I. INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiff Salih Abdul Malik Al-Bey (aka Darrick Newsome, Jr., Darrick E. Newsome, and Derrick E. Newsome) filed this civil rights complaint against Judge Lori L. Olender and Assistant Prosecutor Evy M. Jarrett (Doc. No. 1). For the reasons stated below, I am dismissing the Complaint pursuant to Apple v. Glenn,

(6th Cir. 1999). II. BACKROUND Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a brief statement of claim and a fifty-page attachment, which includes an “affidavit of fact.” (See Doc. No. 1-1). As best the Court can discern, Plaintiff appears to challenge his conviction in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. He claims that Judge Olender and Assistant Prosecutor Jarrett “failed to produce the certified delegation of authority unlawfully held “as surety.” Plaintiff seeks his immediate release. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall,

,

,

(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner,

,

,

(1972). And the Court holds a pro se complaint to a less stringent standard than one drafted by an attorney. Spotts v. United States,

(6th Cir. 2005) (citing Haines,

). The Court is not required, however, to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims on a plaintiff’s behalf. See Grinter v. Knight,

(6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Beaudett v. City of Hampton,

(4th Cir. 1985). The Court is permitted to conduct a limited screening and to dismiss, sua sponte, a fee-paid complaint if it appears that the allegations are so “implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion” as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Apple v. Glenn,

(6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citing Hagans v. Lavine,

,

,

(1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that patently frivolous, attenuated, or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of jurisdiction)). The requirement “that a plaintiff be given the opportunity to amend does not apply to sua sponte

dismissals for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Hagans.”

(citing Tingler v. Marshall,

(6th Cir. 1983)). IV. ANALYSIS Upon review, I find that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The Supreme Court has clearly held that “[w]hen a state prisoner challenges the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment and by way of relief seeks...immediate release or a speedier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,

,

,

(1973). Here, Plaintiff appears to be challenging his conviction, and he is requesting “immediate therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, I dismiss this action in its entirety under Apple v. Glenn.

So Ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge