IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION EMMANUAL DHAKER, ) CASE NO. 1:24 CV 2030 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL ) TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

Pro se Plaintiff Emmanual Dhaker, proceeding without counsel, brings this action against the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (““GCRTA”) and the GCRTA Police. Plaintiff claims that he owns the GCRTA stop at the Southgate in Bedford Heights. He contends it was given to him by the City of Bedford Heights and the police department. He claims the GCRTA police arrested him for trespass and did not read him his Miranda rights. He also claims the officers are using his father’s name on the citations, not his real name. He claims to be a neurologist, and signs the Complaint as an “Atty at Law, Const.” (Doc. No. 1-1 at PageID #: 10). He seeks $5,000,000.00 in damages. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Application is granted. 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. Twombly,

. 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. Jd. 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). The Court, however, is given discretion to refuse to accept without question the truth of Plaintiff's allegations when they are “clearly baseless,” a term encompassing claims that may be fairly described as fanciful, fantastic, delusional, wholly incredible, or irrational. Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). The case at bar undoubtedly presents just such a

-2-

Complaint. It does not contain a coherent statement of fact, a decipherable legal claim, nor a request for relief. Plaintiff fails to meet the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8. Accordingly, Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to

(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.’ IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONALD C. les UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Jif 2 ) bo 6

'

(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. -3-