Williams v. Camino et al, No. 1:2008cv02705 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: 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. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 1/9/09. (LC,S) re 2

Download PDF

Williams v. Camino et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO STEVE WILLIAMS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. WALTER CAMINO, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2705 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On November 17, 2008, plaintiff pro se Steve Williams filed this in forma pauperis action against the following defendants: Walter Camino, Lance T. Mason, A. Duke, Bobby LNU, Greyhound Bus Lines Inc., John Kealey, Jim Jenkins, Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department, and Cuyahoga County Clerk. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The complaint states in its entirety as follows: I was assaulted at Greyhound by the guards and I cannot get any person to make the video come into existence. Complete apathy by defendants and my attorney wants me to take a plea. I am absolutely not guilty of this and I face 30 years without this tape. I pray your [illegible] to get the tape asap and to sanction those who do not produce it. This tape’s existence [is] in jeopardy with each passing day. It is critical evidence. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). 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). A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal federal notice pleading requirements. theory to satisfy See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (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. Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims would...transform of the a pro district se plaintiff, court from its ... [and] legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out 1 A 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. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir. 1985). -2- the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id. Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff 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). 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. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: 1/9/09 -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.