Mayes v. The University of Toledo, No. 3:2009cv01283 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Opinion and Order granting plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis re 2 and dismissing case under section 1915(e). The court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge David A. Katz on 9/18/2009. (R,Ci)

Download PDF

Mayes v. The University of Toledo Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CYNTHIA Y. MAYES, Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:09 CV 1283 JUDGE DAVID A. KATZ OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Cynthia Y. Mayes filed this in forma pauperis action against her employer the University of Toledo. Her motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Background There are no relevant facts alleged in the complaint. Ms. Mayes recites one page of allegations, which include assertions that the defendant “deliberately deceive [sic], degraded and retaliate [sic] against me.” (Compl. at 1.) These events allegedly occurred before May 14, 2009. She further alleges being called several derogatory names, but does not state any basis upon which she believes this behavior action was prohibited by federal law. Moreover, she does not identify any protected class to which she might belong, or that defendant’s treatment was based on her status in any class. In addition to name calling, plaintiff’s former supervisor Dockets.Justia.com allegedly stole “98% of my personal property from my prior office in the [?].”(Compl. at 1.) Standard of Review 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 district court is required to dismiss an 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.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to section 1915(e). Failure to State a Claim There is no statement or reference in the complaint that sets forth this court’s jurisdiction over the matter. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Id. at 1278. To do so would "require ...[the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, ... [and] would...transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id. at 1278. 1 A claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir. 1985). 2 Further, legal conclusions alone are not sufficient to present a valid claim, and this court is not required to accept unwarranted factual inferences. Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987); see Place v. Shepherd, 446 F.2d 1239, 1244 (6th Cir. 1971) (A pleading will not be sufficient to state cause of action under Civil Rights Act if its allegations are but conclusions). Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). 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.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ David A. Katz DAVID A. KATZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. 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.