Eggleston v. Cuyahoga Job and Family Service Office of Child Support Service et al, No. 1:2013cv02705 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 5/6/14. (LC,S)

Download PDF

Eggleston v. Cuyahoga Job and Family Service Office of Child Support Service et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO GREGORY EGGLESTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CUYAHOGA COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY ) SERVICES, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) CASE NO. 1:13 CV 2705 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff pro se Gregory Eddleston filed this in forma pauperis action against Cuyahoga County Job and Family Services Office of Child Support Service, the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The one-page, handwritten Complaint, which does not set forth a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, indicates Plaintiff’s driver license was suspended because he did not comply with a child support order. He alleges that custody of his children was removed from their mother by the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. Plaintiff asks this Court to reinstate his driving privileges. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), 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 Dockets.Justia.com in law or fact.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (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. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). 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. Construing the Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting he 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). Further, even had he otherwise set forth a plausible constitutional claim, this Court would be required to abstain from considering it. Cf. Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of Court, 269 F.3d 533, 539-40 (6th Cir. 2001) (federal district court must abstain from granting declaratory or injunctive affecting state court civil contempt hearing stemming from nonpayment of child support). Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, the Court certifies, 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. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986). -2- pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: 5/6/14 -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.