Macklin v. Williams et al, No. 1:2011cv01818 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Related Doc # 2 ) and this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28:1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Macklin v. Williams et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CARLET MACKLIN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff v. RENA WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:11 CV 1818 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Carlet Macklin filed this action against Rena Williams, Tony Jones, Cherly Clovin, Samantha Colvin, Charollte Williams, Sharon Williams, Jane Eaton, and Camile Allen. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she was the victim of identity theft. She asks the Court to prosecute the Defendants to the full extent of the law. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That Application is granted. Background Plaintiff’s Complaint is very short. She claims she was the victim of identity theft and had many of her personal belongings stolen. She contends tax forms, birth certificates, social security benefits, and insurance money were also taken. She alleges other people are using her name at Metro Health Medical Center. She lives in a shelter on Payne Avenue in Cleveland. She indicates Dockets.Justia.com other residents change beds, spit and poison food. She contends men are let into the building at night and they commit rape. Plaintiff alleges Sharon Williams and her husband are part of the problem. She asks that criminal charges be brought against the Defendants. Standard of Review 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 in forma pauperis 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). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 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 (2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (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. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is 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. 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- not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. 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. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998). Discussion Plaintiff has not established a basis for federal court jurisdiction. Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21, the duty to be less stringent with pro se complaints does not require this Court to create a claim for Plaintiff or conjure up unpled allegations. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). To do so would require the Court “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). Even liberally construed, the Court can find no federal cause of action to support subject matter jurisdiction. Conclusion Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). -3- 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.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Dan Aaron Polster 11/29/11 DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. -4-
]]>
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.
