The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
FELICIA RIDGEWAY, ) Case No.: 1:21 CV 2316
)
Plaintiff ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
)
v. )
)
NANCY PELOSI, et al., )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants ) AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Felicia Ridgeway filed this action against Nancy Pelosi, “United States
District Lawmaker”; President Joseph Biden; Attorney General David Yost; David Brown; “Senator
Portman”; and Governor Mike DeWine.
For the reasons that follow, the action is dismissed.
II. BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a very brief, one-paragraph complaint consisting of one
long incomprehensible sentence. (Doc. No. 1). The complaint is devoid of any facts or decipherable
allegations. The civil cover sheet, however, states that the “U.S. District is in violation ... of my and
my daughters ... criminal and civil constitution right and we are human beings and victims thats
being violated.” (Doc. No. 1-1).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S. Ct.
700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30
L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). The district court, however, 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. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed.
2d 338 (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. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional
or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32,
112 S. Ct. 1728, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992). 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868
(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 he or she 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
-2-
action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932,
92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986).
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).
B. Analysis
Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21; Jourdan v. Jabe, 951
F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991), the Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims
against defendants on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). The complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the
plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Edn., 76 F.3d
716, 724 (6th Cir.1996) (citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet even the most liberal reading of the Twombly and
Iqbal standard as her pleading fails to connect any alleged occurrence to any specific injury, and she
fails to identify how any specific defendant harmed her. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to include any factual
allegations, she does not assert a discernable claim based on recognized legal authority, and she fails
to state a legal cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court or a proper prayer for relief. This
Court and the defendants are left to guess at basic elements of her claim. Plaintiff’s complaint does
not satisfy the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8 and is therefore
dismissed.
-3-
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted,
and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 21, 2022
-4-