Molson v. Wynn, No. 1:2018cv01650 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc # 2 ) is granted. Case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and closed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision may not be taken in good faith. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 8/13/2018. (H,CM)

Download PDF

Molson v. Wynn Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ROWENA MOLSON, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT WYNN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:18CV1650 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J: This matter is before the Court on the Complaint of pro se Plaintiff Rowena Molson against Defendant Robert Wynn. (ECF DKT #1.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF DKT #2), which is granted. For the reasons that follow, this case is dismissed. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s Complaint states in its entirety: Section 440 - Civil Rights No cause and invidious discrimination by gender based on the value of human life at or in excess of $75,000.00 between April 9 to June 1, 2009[,] all days included[.] No involvement by plaintiff, “self”, by word or deed during this April 9 to June 1, 2009 interval[,] only abduction, based on Neurburg [sic] Trials as case in point[.] (ECF DKT #1.) Attached to the Complaint is correspondence from the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, in Spanish, dated June 21, 2018 (ECF DKT #1-1), and a Certificate from Athabasca University stating the Plaintiff has been granted a Bachelor of Arts degree in Dockets.Justia.com Sociology and Anthropology, along with a transcript (ECF DKT #1-2). II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), federal district courts are expressly required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen all in forma pauperis actions and to dismiss before service any such action that 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. The standard for dismissal articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) with respect to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) also governs dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Therefore, in order to survive scrutiny under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a pro se complaint “‘must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). B. Analysis It appears from the Complaint that Plaintiff is asserting a claim related to gender discrimination. However, Plaintiff does not allege any facts regarding the nature of the alleged discrimination or Defendant’s role in any such discrimination. In order to state a plausible claim for relief, Plaintiff must satisfy the basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and the Complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “A pair of Supreme Court decisions . . . confirms that [Rule 8] imposes legal and factual demands on the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd. P’ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502, 2 503 (6th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original) (citing Twombly and Iqbal). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery against Defendant under some viable legal theory. See Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). The Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff. See Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1985). Even liberally construed, Plaintiff does not allege facts that give Defendant “fair notice” of the grounds upon which Plaintiff’s vague gender discrimination claim rests. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 3 III. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and closed. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted (ECF DKT #2). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision may not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO United States District Judge Dated: August 13, 2018 4

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.