Houston v. U.S. Federal Aids et al, No. 1:2017cv00712 - Document 2 (N.D. Ohio 2017)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action under section 1915A. 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. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 4/27/2017. (D,M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Houston v. U.S. Federal Aids et al Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION STANLEY J. HOUSTON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. FEDERAL AIDS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17 CV 712 JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff pro se Stanley Houston, an inmate at the Cuyahoga County Jail, filed this civil rights action against U.S. Federal Aids and the Internal Revenue Service. The Complaint does not contain allegations which are intelligible to this Court. A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the court concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000). 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). A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Beaudette, 775 F.2d 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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. Even liberally construed, the Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting Plaintiff 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) Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915A. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. /S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 27, 2017 -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.
