Henry v. State of Ohio et al, No. 1:2015cv01815 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2015)
Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/29/15 granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). (Related Docs. 1 and 3 ) (W,M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Henry v. State of Ohio et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: MARVIN HENRY, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : STATE OF OHIO, et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------- Doc. 4 CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1815 OPINION & ORDER JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Pro se plaintiff Marvin Henry has filed this in forma pauperis civil action against the “State of Ohio, or [the] City of Galion” and Assistant Law Director David Keller. The complaint sets forth no factual allegations, or any allegations intelligible to the Court. The sum total of the plaintiff’s complaint consists entirely of a heading stating: “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Title or Trespass Assult [sic], Libel & Slander Harassment Intimidation Wrongfull [sic] Prosecution Uncontolled LHE Zoning Rule 605(A) Dumping.” (Doc. No. 1.) Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, it requires more than mere assertions of legal conclusions. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athl. Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). Pro se plaintiffs are still required to meet basic pleadings requirements, and a court is not required to conjure allegations on his behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 Fed. App’x 579, 2001 WL 1556573 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001). In addition, federal district courts are required, under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), to screen and sua sponte dismiss before service any in forma Dockets.Justia.com pauperis action the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to survive dismissal, a complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 (holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). The plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed because it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting the plaintiff has any plausible federal civil claim against the defendants. See Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a complaint must “give the defendants ‘fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’”). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, but his action is dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further 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. Dated: November 29, 2015 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
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.
