Dorsey v. Pneumatic Scale Angelus, No. 5:2016cv01575 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Based on the foregoing, the request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is granted and this action is dismissed under 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. Judge Sara Lioi on 9/22/2016. (S,He)

Download PDF

Dorsey v. Pneumatic Scale Angelus Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DARYL DORSEY, JR., PLAINTIFF, vs. PNEUMATIC SCALE ANGELUS, DEFENDANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:16cv1575 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On June 23, 2016, plaintiff pro se Daryl Dorsey, Jr. filed this in forma pauperis action against his former employer, defendant Pneumatic Scale Angelus. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The statement of claim portion of the complaint states in its entirety as follows: On the above approx date and time I was confronted by Matthew Hunter (painter) who was cursing at me. While argueing [sic] with him he pushed me ripping my shirt, due to this act we were both fired. No one else was present, this same act happened with two previous employees and they were suspend [sic] and brought back to work. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S. Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (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. 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 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (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, 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 (2009). 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. The complaint, even construed liberally in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting that plaintiff might have a valid federal claim against the named defendant. See, Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). Based on the foregoing, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under 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. Dated: September 22, 2016 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.