The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LESHAWN STRADFORD, CASE NO. 1:23 CV 592
Plaintiff,
v. JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
U.S. BANK,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant. AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff LeShawn Stradford (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant U.S. Bank
(“Defendant”). (See ECF No.1, Compl.). The Complaint consists of two brief statements: “U.S.
Bank is illegally taking funds from my checking acct and the amount that [it is] taking is $7.00 a
month. For the past 2 years” and “I’ve been corrupt for something else from the federal industry.”
(Id.). The Complaint contains no request for relief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). The Court grants that
application.
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.
The dismissal standard for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) articulated in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) governs dismissal for failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). To state a plausible claim, a
pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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.
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) (citing Sistrunk,
99 F.3d at 197).
DISCUSSION
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).
2
Here, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet even the most liberal reading of the Twombly and
Iqbal standard as his pleading fails to identify a viable legal basis within the jurisdiction of this Court
or a proper request for relief. Plaintiff merely asserts “430” as the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction.
(ECF No. 1, Compl. at PageID #4). At best, this is an incomplete citation to a law Plaintiff alleges
forms the basis of his claim against Defendant. Plaintiff's failure to identify a particular legal theory
in his Complaint places an unfair burden on Defendant to speculate about potential claims that
Plaintiff may be raising and any defenses it might assert in response. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d
591, 594 (6th Cir.1989), abrogated on other grounds, Moore v. City of Harriman, 272 F.3d 769, 772
(6th Cir. 2001) (en banc); Clements v. Brimfield Twp., No. 1:12 CV 1180, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
162598, at *16 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2012). Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading
requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
For the foregoing reasons, 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.
Date: July 10, 2023 “adi Af
fining
CHARLES E. FLEMING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE