UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JERRY EARL GRANBERRY, SR., ) CASE NO. 4:24 CV 2126 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS ) v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION DANIEL HAUETER, et al., ) AND ORDER ) Defendants. ) Pro se Plaintiff Jerry Earl Granberry, Sr. filed this action against the East Palestine Police Department and Officers Daniel Haueter, Darius D. Elkin, and Christopher Weingart, claiming they committed police misconduct, tampered with evidence, and falsified documents. He does not specify the legal claims he is asserting and does not indicate the relief he seeks. Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Application is granted. I. Background Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief. His Statement of Claim, in its entirety, reads: My rights was violated from policing [sic] knowingly tampering with evidence that made it hard to have a fair trial and now my life and family not to mention my kids have been in ruins of not fully having the childhood. The officers removed evidence purposely to get a conviction and doing do violated my rights not to mention falsifying reports to match what they say happened. (Doc. No. 1 at PageID #: 6-7). He does not specify the legal claims he is asserting nor does he indicate the relief he is seeking from the Court. II. Standard of Review Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall,

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

(1972), the district 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.

In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the -2- pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,

(6th Cir. 1998). III. Analysis

Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner,

(1972); Jourdan v. Jabe,

(6th Cir. 1991), the Court is not required to conjure up unpled allegations. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,

(6th Cir. 2008). Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8 requires a Plaintiff to submit a short, plain and concise statement of his or her claims and relief. To meet the minimum notice pleading requirements of Rule 8, the Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds upon which they rest. Plaintiff does not include any factual

allegations that describe what happened, does not assert a discernable legal claim within the jurisdiction of this Court, and does not indicate the relief he seeks. The Complaint does not satisfy the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 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. February 13, 2025 /s/ John R. Adams DATE JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-