Miller v. Burdman Group, Inc., No. 4:2009cv02066 - Document 5 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. The complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might have a valid claim. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissedunder section 1915(e). Further, 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. Judge John R. Adams on 11/4/09. (R,Sh)

Download PDF

Miller v. Burdman Group, Inc. Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MICHAEL MILLER, Plaintiff, v. BOARDMAN GROUP, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:09 CV 2066 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On September 4, 2009, plaintiff pro se Michael Miller filed this in forma pauperis action against Boardman Group, Inc. The complaint asserts “discrimination, harassment, and mental stress, and unlawful employment practices.” In particular, plaintiff alleges he sought housing and employment assistance from defendant in December 2008. During two assessment periods at the Rescue Mission, plaintiff was allegedly harassed by an individual named Tony. Plaintiff has yet to receive housing and employment assistance, and “believe[s] my age, race and disability are factors in the treatment I received.” 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); 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). Dockets.Justia.com Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. It must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 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. Id. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. Even liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might have a valid claim. See Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, 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. DATE: November 4, 2009 /s/ John R. Adams JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.