Ridgeway v. F.B.I., et al, No. 1:2021cv01797 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be good faith. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 12/10/2021. (R,Sh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ridgeway v. F.B.I., et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION FELICIA RIDGEWAY, Plaintiff v. FBI, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:21 CV 1797 JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiff Felicia Ridgeway filed this action against the FBI, Warrensville Heights School, and “Guardians Records Transcript 28 records.” For the reasons that follow, the action is dismissed. II. BACKGROUND On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a very brief and unconventional complaint that merely lists various names in a haphazard manner on an otherwise blank sheet of paper. (Doc. No. 1). The complaint is devoid of any facts or allegations. The civil cover sheet, however, states that “Lakeside FBI lied about investigating my identity, thief, body harm, fraud.” (Doc. No. 1-2). Dockets.Justia.com III. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S. Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). The district court, however, is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992). A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but he or she must provide more than “an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of -2- action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986). In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998). B. Analysis Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21; Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991), the Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). The complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Edn., 76 F.3d 716, 724 (6th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet even the most liberal reading of the Twombly and Iqbal standard as her pleading fails to connect any alleged occurrence to any specific injury, and she fails to identify how any specific defendant harmed her in any way. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to include any factual allegations, does not assert a discernable claim based on recognized legal authority, and fails to state a legal cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court or a proper prayer for relief. This Court and the defendants are left to guess at basic elements of her claim. Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8 and is therefore dismissed. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted, -3- and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE December 10, 2021 -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.
