Carletti v. Wells et al, No. 4:2016cv01971 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 9/30/2016. (JLG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carletti v. Wells et al Doc. 3 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION RANDALL A. CARLETTI, Plaintiff, v. KARA WELLS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:16cv1971 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Randall A. Carletti brings this action for replevin, conversion, and fraud against Defendants Kara Wells, Troy Wells, and Lonetree Towing. ECF No. 2. The allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint are difficult to decipher, but Plaintiff indicates Defendants have custody of his tractor trailer in Nebraska and will not release it until he pays storage fees. Id. at PageID #: 18–19. A July 1, 2016 letter attached to the Amended Complaint shows Plaintiff made an offer of settlement to retrieve the trailer. Id. at PageID #: 23. He asserts Defendants have committed criminal offenses in connection with this matter. Id. at PageID #: 19. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 417 (6th Cir. 1996). A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436–37 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Martin v. Dockets.Justia.com (4:16cv1971) Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001)); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). To do so would “require . . . [the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, . . . [and] would . . . transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. Even construing the Amended Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting Plaintiff might have a valid federal claim, or even that there is a valid basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. This case is therefore appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (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); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir.1988) (recognizing that unsubstantial claims cannot be the basis of federal question jurisdiction). Accordingly, this action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 30, 2016 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson 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.
