Chelski v. State of Ohio, No. 1:2013cv02456 - Document 2 (N.D. Ohio 2013)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order. For the reasons set forth herein, the Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 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 11/7/2013. (H,CM)

Download PDF
Chelski v. State of Ohio Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO JAMES KEVIN CHELSKI, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:13 CV 2456 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff James Kevin Chelski’s above-captioned in forma pauperis Complaint. He names the State of Ohio as defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the action is dismissed. Background The Complaint is comprised of twenty-five paragraphs. In each, Mr. Chelski either lists a conclusory allegation or a vague accusation of corruption, wrongful prosecution, fraud, wrongful termination and loss of liberty. He claims that when he “filed a civil suit 11cv67 to compensate me for the damage done me by state employees the state employees working in the clerks office filed Dockets.Justia.com the suit with out accepting or denieing [sic] my idegence [sic] plea so I dropped the case.”1 (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) Mr. Chelski claims further that he was fired from “Pen Glo” without cause because the State of Ohio wanted him to lose his job. He does not “wish to make the public aware of the corruption only to remove it from the courts and compensate me my loss.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) Finally, he asks the Court to place him in protective custody “while this case is tried.” 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 any claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a basis upon which relief can be granted, or 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); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Failure to State a Claim 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 “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 seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Id. at 1278. Dismissal is appropriate “when the facts alleged rise 1 Mr. Chelski does not disclose in what county he filed his state court action. -2- to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible ...”. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting Mr. Chelski might have a valid federal claim against the State of Ohio. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 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/ Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: November 7, 2013 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” -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.