Burrell v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, et al, No. 1:2008cv01993 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's request to proceed informa pauperis and dismissing this action under Section 1915(e). Further, 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 Christopher A. Boyko on 08/29/08. (M,M)

Download PDF
Burrell v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN D. BURRELL, Plaintiff, vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:08CV1993 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.: On August 18, 2008, Plaintiff pro se, John D. Burrell, filed this in forma pauperis action against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cleveland and The Cleveland Police Department. The Complaint does not state intelligible allegations or grounds for relief, and must therefore be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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 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, and if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990). A claim may be dismissed Dockets.Justia.com 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) and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997). The above-captioned action lacks an arguable basis in law, and fails to allege a cognizable federal claim against the named Defendants. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Id. at 1278. To do so 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.” Id. Even liberally construed, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint are insufficient to suggest Plaintiff has a valid federal cause of action. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed under Section 1915(e). Further, 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: August 29, 2008 S/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO 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.