The opinion
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
FRANK M. KALAN, )
) CASE NO. 4:23 CV 01654
Plaintiff, )
) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
v. )
)
CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN, ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
) AND ORDER
Defendant. )
I. Background
Pro se plaintiff Frank M. Kalan filed this civil rights action against the City of
Youngstown. ECF No. 1. Accompanying the complaint is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECE No. 2), which the Court grants.
Plaintiff’ s complaint does not say much. In the statement of claim, Plaintiff alleges only
“house of 166 Earle St. (or 116 W. Earle) Demolished.” ECF No. | at PageID#: 4. He appears
to claim that this demolition violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution. See ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 3. For relief, Plaintiff lists house, contents, and
demolition followed by dollar amounts with no explanation of the type of damages sought or the
reasons he is entitled to those amounts.
Il. Standard for Dismissal
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.
(4:23CV01654)
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.
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). In any civil action, a pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”_Ashcroft v. Igbal, 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.” Jgbal, 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. Jd. 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
(4:23CV01654)
favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998)
III. Law and Analysis
The Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. El Bey v. Roop, 530 F.3d 407, 413 (6th Cir. 2008).
However, the “lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits.” Pilgrim v.
Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Liberal construction for pro se litigants does not
“abrogate basic pleading requirements.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The
Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf
of a pro se plaintiff. See Bassett y. Nat’l Collegiate Ath. Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir.
2008). Although specific facts are not required, to meet the basic minimum notice pleading
requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs complaint must give
the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds on which
they rest. Id.
Here, the complaint, when liberally construed, fails to meet basic pleading standards of
Rule 8. The complaint seems to allege that Defendant harmed Plaintiff but provides no salient
details. In other words, Plaintiffs pleading fails to provide the minimal short and plain
statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief. Rather, the complaint merely alleges
“unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation,” without informing the Court of
Plaintiffs reasons or giving the defendant sufficient notice. Jgbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In sum, the
complaint fails to state a claim on which the Court may grant relief.
(4:23CV01654)
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 2) and dismisses the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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.
December 18, 2023 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
4