Reeves v. Court of Appeals Department et al, No. 1:2015cv02032 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2015)
Court Description: Memorandum of 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 10/26/15. (LC,S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Reeves v. Court of Appeals Department et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO SHAQUATA REEVES, Plaintiff, v. OHIO COURT OF APPEALS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:15 CV 2032 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff pro se Shaquata Reeves filed this in forma pauperis action against Defendants Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth Appellate District and John Martin.1 Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that Defendants have declined to file a notice of appeal from her criminal conviction, thus violating her constitutional rights. 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 in law or fact.2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). 1 The Complaint indicates Martin is employed by the Ohio Court of Appeals. 2 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). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
