Primus-Cunningham v. Fankhauser et al, No. 5:2017cv02716 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is granted and the Complaint (Doc. No. 1 ) is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff's motions for appointmen t of counsel (Doc. No. 3 ) and an "extension of time for Court" to appoint pro bono counsel (Doc. No. 5 ) are denied. 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 5/14/2018. (D,JJ)

Download PDF

Primus-Cunningham v. Fankhauser et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Sharyll Primus Cunningham, Plaintiff, v. Portage County Courthouse, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:17 CV 2716 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Sharyll Primus Cunningham has filed a complaint in this action against the Portage County Courthouse and multiple court employees and attorneys. (Doc. No. 1.) Her complaint is identical to the complaint pro se plaintiff Paul Cunningham filed in this Court in 5:17 CV 2714. Like Mr. Cunningham’s complaint, the plaintiff’s complaint alleges: Violation of my constitutional rights in all my cases by all Defendants. They have Black Balled me. They have rui[ned] my life with their actions. I have been told that “Here in Portage County we Deal with the Good old Boys System.” (Id., p. 8.) Discussion Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), “the lenient treatment generally accorded pro se litigants has limits.” Dockets.Justia.com Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). Federal district courts are required, under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), to screen all in forma pauperis complaints brought in federal court, and to dismiss before service any such action that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to state a claim, a complaint must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under §1915(e)(2)(B)). The “allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Additionally, they must be sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice of what [the plaintiff’s] claims are and the grounds upon which they rest.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002). The allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to state any plausible claim on which relief may be granted against any defendant in this case. See Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief). See also Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 F. App'x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (where a person is named as a defendant in a case without an allegation of specific conduct, a complaint is subject to dismissal even under the liberal construction afforded pro se pleadings). Conclusion 2 Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted, and her complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Her motions for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3) and an “extension of time for Court” to appoint pro bono counsel (Doc. No. 5) are denied. 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: May 14, 2018 /s/ John R. Adams JOHN R. ADAMS 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.