Loyd v. Workers Compensation, No. 1:2014cv01647 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing (re 1 ) Complaint filed by Henry Loyd. Further, the Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 8/15/2014. (D,M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HENRY LOYD, Plaintiff, v. WORKERS COMPENSATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:14 CV1647 CHIEF JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Henry Loyd’s above-captioned complaint against Workers Compensation. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed. The complaint Mr. Loyd filed is a Sample document provided by the Northern District Court of Ohio. At the bottom of the document, is a scribbled note indicating Mr. Loyd had a court order stating workers compensation paid “claim insurance to privileged matter.” (Doc. No. 1.) Beyond that phrase, the remainder of the one page complaint is unintelligible. 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), a “district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999); see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that patently frivolous claims divest the district court of jurisdiction); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by obviously frivolous and unsubstantial claims). Failure to State a Claim Construing the Complaint in a light most favorable to Mr. Loyd, the Court concludes he could not prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. See Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir.1996). As a threshold matter, a plaintiff is obligated “to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief . . . labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Assn. of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-55 (2007)). 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 to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible ...”. Denton v. -2- Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting Mr. Loyd might have a valid federal claim against Workers Compensation. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the complaint is dismissed. Further, the Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 15, 2014 1 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.
