Mickey v. Spanagal et al, No. 1:2016cv00002 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action. Judge Dan A. Polster 1/6/16 (C,KA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mickey v. Spanagal et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO AUDREY L. MICKEY, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE SPANAGAL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16 CV 0002 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff pro se Audrey L. Mickey filed this action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against Parma Municipal Judge Spanagal and Cuyahoga County Judge Corrigan. The Complaint does not contain intelligible fact allegations, but appears to assert Defendants have engaged in conduct violating Ohio criminal statutes. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter, Dockets.Justia.com accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). Given the most liberal construction, the Complaint does not contain allegations remotely suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid federal claim, or even that there is a reasonable basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. This case is therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999); see, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)(citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of jurisdiction); see also, In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir.1988)(recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims). Accordingly, this action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Dan Aaron Polster 1/6/16 DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
