Tanker v. Homid et al, No. 1:2018cv01726 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/31/18 granting plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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. (Related Doc. 2 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tanker v. Homid et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------ANTHONY TANKER, Plaintiff, vs. MELINDA HOMID, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. 1:18CV1726 OPINON & ORDER ------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Pro se Plaintiff Anthony Tanker has filed an in forma pauperis civil rights Complaint against Defendants Melinda Homid and Alex Rokias (Doc. No. 1). The Complaint does not set forth clear factual allegations, or specific legal claims. The Plaintiff’s Complaint merely claims that h“s c“v“l r“ghts have been v“olated because the D“str“ct Attorney and Ch“ef Counsel are tak“ng 100% of [h“s] money and he was falsely prosecuted. (Id. at 4, ¶ 3.) For relief, he seeks two hundred million dollars. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Federal district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), to screen all in forma pauperis actions filed in federal court, and to dismiss before service any such action that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). To survive a dismissal for failure to state a cla“m, a compla“nt must set forth suff“c“ent factual matter, accepted as true, to state a cla“m to rel“ef that “s plaus“ble on “ts face. Id. at 470-71 (hold“ng that the d“sm“ssal standard articulated in [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)] and [Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:18CV01726 Gwin, J. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)] governs d“sm“ssals for fa“lure to state a cla“m under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Although pro se plead“ngs are l“berally construed, the lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has l“m“ts. Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991)). Pro se plaintiff must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations or construct legal claims on their behalf. See Erwin Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 2001 WL 1556573 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001). The Court f“nds the Pla“nt“ff’s Complaint should be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Pla“nt“ff’s conclusory allegations do not reasonably suggest he has any plausible federal civil rights claim against either Defendant. See Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996) (court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief). Further, to the extent the Plaintiff is purporting to challenge the Social Security Administrat“on’s (SSA) withholding of social security payments to him, Judge Polster has already determined, in a prior civil action the Plaintiff filed, that the SSA was properly w“thhold“ng all of the Pla“nt“ff’s monthly soc“al secur“ty benef“ts unt“l he re-paid the $36,096.28 he was found to owe in a federal criminal case. See Tanker v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 1: 15 CV 469 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2015). To the extent he contends he was falsely prosecuted “n the federal criminal case, his Complaint fails to allege any cognizable civil rights damages claim because nothing in his Complaint suggests that his federal criminal conviction or sentence has been invalidated or otherwise called into question. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 ( “n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other -2- Case No. 1:18CV01726 Gwin, J. harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ). Conclusion Accordingly, the Pla“nt“ff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter (Doc. No. 2) is granted, and his Complaint is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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/ Dated: October 25, 2018 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-
]]>
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.
