IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ISAAC PETERSON, ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-02347 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ ) v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION OFFICER J. BRYAN, et al., ) AND ORDER ) Defendants. )

Pro se Plaintiff Isaac Peterson filed this action against the City of Linndale, three Linndale police officers and the Linndale Mayor. Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief. In its entirety, it states: “was illegally detained about 30 min denied freedom of speech/travel/due process.” R. 1 at PageID#: 4. He does not specify the relief he seeks. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. R. 2. That Application is granted, but the case is dismissed. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall,

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

(1972), the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under

(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,

(1989); Lawler v. Marshall,

(6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville,

(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,

. 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,

(2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(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.,

. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-Defendant-

unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal,

. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard.

In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,

(6th Cir. 1998). To meet the minimum pleading requirements under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8, the Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s legal claims against them are and the factual grounds upon which those claims rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,

(6th Cir. 2008). While this Complaint identifies the three legal claims of denial of freedom of speech, denial of the right to travel and denial of due process, Plaintiff

provides no factual allegations to suggest how any of these Defendants violated these rights. Absent factual allegations to support the legal assertions, the Complaint does not meet the minimum pleading standard. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted. This action is dismissed pursuant to

(e). The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision cannot be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 16, 2024 /s/ David A. Ruiz DAVID A. RUIZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE