Mott v. Mittal Steel et al, No. 4:2017cv02495 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed. 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 Benita Y. Pearson on 1/29/2018. (JLG)

Download PDF

Mott v. Mittal Steel et al Doc. 3 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION TERRENCE MOTT, Plaintiff, v. MITTAL STEEL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:17CV2495 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER I. Pro se Plaintiff Terrence Mott brings this action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961—1968, against the following Defendants: Mittal Steel, Targa Resources, M.D. Anderson, Dearing Compressor, Archrock Compression, Diversified Gas & Oil, Gazprom, DLA Piper & Assoc., Kelley and Ferraro, Local 396 Plumbers & Steamfitters, Blue Tree Capital, Ohio Edison, First Energy, Unicredito Banco, MCM Management, Meggitt, Weeden & Co. LP, Buckeye Partners (Pipeline), Lukoil, BNP Paribas, Otto Family, OEA School Teachers Union, Ohio Federation of Teachers, Greenstar Recycling, Don Plusquellic, Harry Nicholson, Wife Judy, Gazprom Bank, Attorney Gil Blair, Masonic Lodges, Order of the Star, Jehovah Witness, Mooney Graduates, Atlas Copco Compression, Attorney James B. Dietz, and Farm Credit Mid-America.1 ECF No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s action is dismissed. 1 Plaintiff indicates “others to be name in future.” Dockets.Justia.com (4:17CV2495) II. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 2), identifies the parties, judges and alleges the following: I, Terrence Mott, am charging the above defendants with RICO violations and polluting of the nat. gas formation (Clinton formation) with chemical laden emissions and other resperatory [sic] fibrous lung irritants, for the—(Warren, OH plant asbestos removal currently)—purpose of extortion, to pay for failing casinos worldwide and too many hospitals in Akron that don't bring in foreign revenue like manufacturing. Our country and the world was set to go into a depression under Clinton-Bush lazy southernor [sic] agendas. Mineral Ridge area Brittish MI-6 human traffickers have no say in this case. I Terrence Mott am taking a position in MCM managed Warren OH properties and the Monaca PA cracker plant. The Amended Complaint ends with nothing more added other than the date and Plaintiff’s signature and address.2 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 (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 (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 must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A 2 The Amended Complaint is an improvement over the original complaint in that it is type-written and ends with a complete sentence. 2 (4:17CV2495) pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. Even when liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting he might have a valid claim, see, Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that the court is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief). Therefore, the Court finds this case is appropriately subject to summary dismissal. See Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that a complaint may be summarily dismissed when claim is not arguably plausible). III. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. 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. January 29, 2018 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson 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.