Coates Duncan v. Shephard, No. 1:2017cv02633 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court finds this action warrants sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn . The allegations in the complaint are so unsubstantial that they do not provide a basis to establish this Court 's subject-matter jurisdiction. This action is dismissed. 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. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 1/26/2018. (R,Sh)

Download PDF
Coates Duncan v. Shephard Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PENELOPE GENELL COATE DUNCAN, Pro Se, Plaintiff v. CHEYENNE SHEPHARD, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17 CV 2633 JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro Se Plaintiff Penelope Genell Coate Duncan has filed a complaint in this action against Cheyenne Shephard and the United States Government. (Doc. No. 1.) Her Complaint, in total, states as follows: “Attempted murder and embezzlement.” She has filed no other pleadings with the Court. 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), the lenient treatment accorded pro se plaintiffs has limits. See e.g., Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.1996). Pro se litigants must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 Fed. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to police the boundaries Dockets.Justia.com of their jurisdiction. “[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). The Court finds this action warrants sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn. The allegations in the complaint are so unsubstantial that they do not provide a basis to establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. 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. /S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE January 26, 2018 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.