Zelesnik v. University of Dayton et al, No. 1:2018cv02127 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's 1 complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in accordance with the Court's authority established in Apple v. Glenn, supra; her motion to proceed in forma pauperi s (Doc. No. 2 ) is denied as moot; and plaintiff is hereby cautioned that she may be restricted from filing future in forma pauperis lawsuits if she continues to file complaints in this district that are patently without merit and unnecessarily encroach upon the judicial machinery needed by others. 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. Judge Sara Lioi on 11/21/2018. (T,Je)

Download PDF

Zelesnik v. University of Dayton et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PAULA ZELESNIK, PLAINTIFF, vs. UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, et al., DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:18-cv-2127 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Paula Zelesnik has filed an in forma pauperis civil complaint in this action against multiple defendants (Doc. No. 1.) Her one-page, hand-written complaint is incomprehensible. It does not set forth factual allegations, or discernible legal claims as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rather, it consists only of a list of purely conclusory accusations, including: “rape and attempted murder,” “forced perjury to court under oath per death threats,” “falsification of all documents,” “rape,” and “forced perjury for Obamacare per Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown.” (Id.) Although pro se pleadings generally are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations or construct legal claims on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). Moreover, federal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, have a duty to police the boundaries of their jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “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 [the] complaint are totally Dockets.Justia.com 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 that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed in accordance with Apple v. Glenn. The complaint is so incoherent, implausible, devoid of merit, and frivolous that it does not provide a basis to establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, much less the basis for any plausible claim for relief. Further, the Court notes that plaintiff has filed several in forma pauperis lawsuits in this district that have been dismissed for failure to state plausible claims. See Zelesnik v. General Motors, et al., Case No. 1: 18 CV 2165 (Gwin, J.); Zelesnik et al. v. Magnificat HS, et al., Case No. 1: 18 CV 2188 (Boyko, J.); and Zelesnik v. Laverty, et al., Case No. 1: 18 CV 2360 (Polster, J.). Although this district has been very tolerant of plaintiff’s pro se filings, federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out their judicial functions. Procup v. Stickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986). As the Supreme Court has recognized: “Every paper filed with the Clerk of . . . Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice,” including by restricting a litigant’s ability to proceed in forma pauperis. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S. Ct. 993, 103 L. Ed. 2d (1989). Conclusion For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in accordance with the Court’s authority established in Apple v. Glenn, supra; her motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied as moot; and plaintiff is hereby 2 cautioned that she may be restricted from filing future in forma pauperis lawsuits if she continues to file complaints in this district that are patently without merit and unnecessarily encroach upon the judicial machinery needed by others. 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. Dated: November 21, 2018 HONORABLE SARA LIOI 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.