Gripp v. Fed Gov. et al, No. 3:2021cv00298 - Document 5 (W.D. Ky. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 5/26/21; granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis: This case will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff(pro se) (DJT)

Download PDF

Gripp v. Fed Gov. et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION DAVID M. GRIPP, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. FED GOV. et al., Defendants. *** *** Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-298-CHB MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** *** Plaintiff David M. Gripp filed a pro se action and an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, [R. 4], which is GRANTED. For the following reasons, this case will be dismissed. Plaintiff filed this action on a civil complaint form. In the caption of the form, he names “Fed Gov.” as Defendant. In the Parties section of the form, he names as Defendants “Fed Gov.” with a job title of “Judge” and “Fed Emp.” with a job title of “Clerk.” Plaintiff asserts federalquestion jurisdiction, writing “Civial Law” and “Gambling” as the basis of that jurisdiction. As his Statement of Claim, he states, “Contracts Employment Gambling Civial law Constution Gambling with the right people.” Finally, in the Relief section of the form, Plaintiff writes, “Bisness is Bisness and civle rights.” Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). On review, a district court must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant Dockets.Justia.com who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[A] . . . complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Conclusory allegations or bare legal conclusions will not suffice as factual allegations. Followell v. Mills, 317 F. App’x 501, 505 (6th Cir. 2009); Gregory v. Shelby Cty., Tenn., 220 F.3d 433, 446 (6th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.”). In the instant case, Plaintiff fails to provide material facts in support of any viable legal theory. The complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true, states “‘a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 2 U.S. at 570). Plaintiff fails to place Defendants on notice as to any claims against them, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (indicating that the short and plain statement of a claim must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’”) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. 544), and the pleadings are simply too vague and sparse to state a cause of action under any legal theory. Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the duty to be less stringent “does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations,” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or otherwise create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require courts “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also 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 v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). For these reasons, this case will be dismissed by separate Order. The 26th day of May, 2021. cc: Plaintiff, pro se A958.005 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.