Spencer-Dey v. Jones, No. 5:2016cv00903 - Document 12 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this matter under section 1915(e). An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 5/31/16. (K,C)

Download PDF
Spencer-Dey v. Jones Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CANDACE K. SPENCER-DEY, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES E. JONES, President, Illuminating Company, A-FECC, Defendant.. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 5:16 CV 903 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Candace Spencer-Bey brings this in forma pauperis action against Illuminating Company President, Charles E. Jones. The two-page complaint, which appears to rely on the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, does not set forth intelligible fact allegations or a coherent legal theory. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), the district court is required to dismiss an 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.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). 1 An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986). Dockets.Justia.com Even construing the 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 she might have a valid federal claim. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). This action is therefore dismissed under section 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. Date: May 31, 2016 /s/ John R. Adams JOHN R. ADAMS 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.