IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ISAAC PETERSON, ) CASE NO. 1:23 CV 1790 ) ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ ) v. ) ) TIFFANY BRAZELTEN, et al., ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Defendants. ) Pro se plaintiff Isaac Peterson has filed a complaint in this case against multiple defendants (R. 1), along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (R. 2). His complaint does not set forth any factual allegations regarding conduct of any defendant, or providing a basis for his suit. Rather, in its entirety, his complaint simply states: 14th Amendment deprive me of my p[ur]suit of happiness. Have not seen my son since Oct. 29, 2018. full custody of son as well as pay of $76,000 for pain and suffering. (R. 1-1 at PageID# 8). Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, the generous construction afforded pro se plaintiffs has limits. Pilgrim v. Littlefield,

(6th Cir. 1996). Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf or construct claims for them. See Erwin v. Edwards,

,

(6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001). Federal district courts are expressly required, under

(e)(2)(B), to screen all in forma pauperis complaints filed in federal court, and to dismiss before service any such action that the court determines is frivolous or 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. See

(e)(2)(B). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Hill v. Lappin,

(6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard

articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) governs dismissals under

(e)(2)(B)). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the “allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly,

. Additionally, they must be sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice of what [the plaintiff’s] claims are and the grounds upon which they rest.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,

(2002). In addition, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to police the boundaries of their jurisdiction in every case. “[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn,

(6th Cir. 1999). The Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint warrants dismissal pursuant § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Apple v. Glenn. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet basic pleading requirements and is so incoherent, unsubstantial, and frivolous that it fails to provide a basis to establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over any plausible federal claim against any defendant in the case. See Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ.,

, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief). Further, district courts lack jurisdiction over child custody matters. Partridge v. State of Ohio, 79 Fed. App’x 844, 845 (6th Cir. 2003). Conclusion Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (R. 2) is granted, and his complaint is dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and Apple v. Glenn. The Court

further certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ David A. Ruiz DAVID A. RUIZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: October 8, 2024