Payne v. Cuyahoga County Jail, et al, No. 1:2017cv01478 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/26/17 dismissing this action under 1915A for the reasons set forth in this order. 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. (D,MA)

Download PDF
Payne v. Cuyahoga County Jail, et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO KEVIN PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1478 JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN OPINION & ORDER On July 13, 2017, plaintiff pro se Kevin Payne, an inmate at the Cuyahoga County Jail, filed this civil rights action against Cuyahoga County Jail and the Sheriff’s Department. The complaint does not set forth substantive allegations. Instead, plaintiff asserts in summary terms that he was denied access to the jail law library, which was “detrimental to [his] prior and future criminal cases.” 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 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. 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. Dated: July 26, 2017 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.