McCoy v. Obama, No. 5:2011cv01664 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc # 1 , 2 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 10/17/2011. (P,J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McCoy v. Obama Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION WILLIE R. McCOY, III, PLAINTIFF, vs. PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA, DEFENDANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:11cv1664 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Willie R. McCoy, III filed this action against the United States President, Barak Obama. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the United States Treasury is holding funds to which he believes he is entitled. He seeks release of the funds. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That Application is granted. Background Plaintiff=s Complaint is very brief. It states in its entirety: President Barak Obama, Washington D.C. This Complaint is Consearning [sic] my funds that’s [sic] being withheld by the President of the United States of America. I=ve been on a reality show called Big Brother for the last 8 years. I=m asking the court to have my funds released out of the United States treasury and into a personal bank account of my own. ECF. No. 1 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 Dockets.Justia.com court 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.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). 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. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks Aplausibility in the complaint.@ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading must contain a Ashort and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (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. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than Aan unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.@ Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. 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). 1 An in forma pauperis 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 Analysis This action lacks an arguable basis in law and fact. The United States, as a sovereign, cannot be sued without its prior consent, and the terms of its consent define the Court=s subject matter jurisdiction. McGinness v. U.S., 90 F.3d 143, 145 (6th Cir. 1996). A waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed, unequivocally expressed, and cannot be implied. U.S. v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969); Soriano v. U.S., 352 U.S. 270, 276 (1957). Claims asserted against United States government officials in their official capacities are construed as claims against the United States. See Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573, 581 (2d Cir. 2000)(finding that agencies, instrumentalities, and officers of the federal government cannot be sued under antitrust laws); Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir.1991)(stating that a Bivens claim cannot be asserted against the United States government or its employees in their official capacities). Plaintiff=s claims against Barak Obama are clearly asserted against him in his official capacity as the President of the United States. Consequently, Plaintiff must articulate a cause of action in his Complaint for which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. No cause of action, however, is listed in the Complaint and none is apparent on the face of the pleading. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A Complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 3 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would Arequire ...[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. Even liberally construing the pleading, there is not a sufficient indication that the United States waived its sovereign immunity to allow this matter to proceed. Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 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. Dated: October 17, 2011 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. 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.
