Peterson v. School et al., No. 1:2024cv00092 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2024)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated herein, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan on 5/10/2024. (H,AR)

Download PDF

Peterson v. School et al. Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ISAAC PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. MARK SCHOOL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00092 JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN OPINION AND ORDER On January 16, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Isaac Peterson filed this action against Mayfield Village Police Officers Mark School and Zachary Reiland. His Complaint in its entirety states: “denied the right to travel & bear arms.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4.)1 He indicated the basis for federal question jurisdiction is “Amdt 14. S1. 8. 13.2 Murdoch v. PA 1779 Naturalization Act.” (Id. at 3.) He does not specify the relief he seeks. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Motion is GRANTED. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it For ease and consistency, record citations are to the electronically stamped CM/ECF document and PageID# rather than any internal pagination. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 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, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). 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, 677-78 (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., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998). Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to submit a short, plain and concise statement of his 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. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations and his legal claims are stated solely as legal conclusions. Legal conclusions alone are not sufficient to state a claim and do not meet the minimum pleading requirements of Rule 8. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 2 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: May 10, 2024 3

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.