# Watson v. Aetna Insurance Company

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · November 15, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367793

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** November 15, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367793

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH R. WATSON, ) CASE NO. 1:19CV2675
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
)
vs. )
)
AETNA INSURANCE CO., et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendant. )

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff Kenneth R. Watson filed a Complaint pro se on behalf
of his father, James Lee Watson. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff’s father, James, will be
removed from his nursing home on November 15, 2019. Plaintiff alleges his father is unable to
live without the care of the nursing home and will die if he is discharged. Plaintiff asks the Court
to issue an order that his father remain in the nursing home and Defendants continue to pay for
his father’s support. In the morning of November 15, 2019, Plaintiff appeared at the Court on his
own initiative to reiterate the dire situation and his request.
Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the Court cannot issue any relief at this time. The relief
Plaintiff seeks is an extraordinary remedy and is issued cautiously and sparingly. See
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312-13 (1982). While the Court must construe
pro se filings liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), “[l]iberal construction does
not require a court to conjure allegations on a litigant’s behalf.” Erwin v. Edwards, 22 Fed.
App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001) (citing Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.
1989)). Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth a claim for emergency relief. Thus, the Court will
not create emergency relief on Plaintiff’s behalf.
This matter shall proceed in its regular course. As required by statute for proceedings in
forma pauperis, the Court will issue a separate order that determines whether this action (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge

Dated: November 15, 2019

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367793. Public record. Not legal advice.