The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Lester Williams, Case No. 3:18-cv-02470
Plaintiff
v. MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Chief John Orzech, et al.,
Defendants
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Pro se Plaintiff Lester Williams filed this action against Sandusky Police Chief John Orzech,
Sandusky Police Detective Ronald Brotherton, Sandusky Police Detective A. West, and Parole
Officer Catherine Hasting. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants reneged on a plea deal
after he performed his part of the agreement. He does not specify a legal cause of action. He seeks
monetary relief.
Plaintiff contends that, in November 2017, Detectives Brotherton and West approach him
and his co-defendant and indicated to them that the charges in a pending case would be dismissed if
they agreed to work with them in a narcotics investigation. He indicates they were unaware that on
the day they were approached by detectives, Brotherton had posted video of a raid on the internet,
placing them in danger without their knowledge. He states Brotherton told him to be around a
particular drug dealer and relay information about the dealer’s activities to the detectives.
did not make a buy in a few hours, he would go back to jail. Plaintiff indicates he told Brotherton
that the dealer did not trust him and believe him to be a police officer. Plaintiff contends
Brotherton was unsympathetic and wanted Plaintiff to arrange to buy drugs. Plaintiff indicates he
contacted Brotherton on November 28, 2017 and arranged to meet him. He claims Brotherton
reiterated his threat that Plaintiff would be arrested by the end of the day if he did not arrange to
buy drugs from the dealer.
Plaintiff contends Brotherton told him to meet him after the transaction was complete at the
dealer’s house on Finch Street. Plaintiff states that when he arrived, Brotherton was with Plaintiff’s
parole officer, Catherine Hasting. Plaintiff alleges Brotherton attempted to arrest him for the drugs
Brotherton had pressured him to buy. When they did not find any drugs on Plaintiff, they arrested
him for having a gun in his possession. He claims he later discovered that neither Brotherton nor
his attorney informed the prosecutor of the deal. He does not indicate the outcome of any criminal
case against him.
Plaintiff does not identify any legal claims he is attempting to assert. He provides a narrative
of facts and indicates he is seeking monetary damages.
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), I am 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. 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
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. Bell Atl. Corp., 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 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, I 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).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff fails to identify any particular cause of action he intends to pursue, and none is
apparent on the face of the Complaint. 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). To meet the minimum basic pleading requirements,
the Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s legal claims are and the
factual grounds upon which they rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437
(6th Cir. 2008).
While as a pro se litigant he is not required to cite chapter and verse of a particular statute, he
must provide me and the Defendants with some indication of what legal claims he is attempting to
assert. I cannot read through his assertions to explore exhaustively all potential claims he may have
and seek out the strongest arguments for him. This is not the role of the federal courts. My role is
to adjudicate disputes, not to assist in asserting them. Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. If I were to do so,
advocate.” Id. at 1278. Moreover, Plaintiff’s failure to identify a particular legal theory in his
Complaint places an unfair burden on the Defendants to speculate on the potential claims that
Plaintiff may be raising against them and the defenses they might assert in response to each of these
possible causes of action. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Even liberally
construed, the Complaint does not meet the basic pleading requirements.
CONCLUSION
Having considered and examined the pro se Plaintiff’s pleadings to determine their legal
viability, I conclude they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, this
action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. This case is closed.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge