Mays v. Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority, No. 1:2009cv00573 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and this action is dismissed. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28:1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Dan Aaron Polster (C,KA)

Download PDF
Mays v. Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO JUAN AHMAD MAYS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendants. CASE NO. 1:09 CV 573 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On March 17, 2009, plaintiff pro se Juan Ahmad Mays filed this in forma pauperis action against Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA).1 the Cuyahoga County While the complaint is somewhat unclear, plaintiff appears to be alleging that CMHA has poor management practices, and that some improperly evicted for non-payment of rent. tenants have been For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag 1 The complaint also purports to be filed on behalf of Tenants Rights Association of Cleveland, Inc. Plaintiff may only file pro se on his own behalf, however. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Dockets.Justia.com 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, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.2 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 theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. 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 Beaudette, 775 F.2d at 1278. claims from sentence fragments. To do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would...transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate 2 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 seeking out 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. 716 (6th See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ,, 76 F.3d 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/Dan Aaron Polster 3/23/09 DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.