The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ISAAC PETERSON, ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-1914
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
)
vs. )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
CAPTAIN TODD HAMSEN, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
)
)
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Isaac Peterson filed this in forma pauperis complaint against Captain Todd
Hamsen, Sergeant Feathers, Corrections Officer L. Millis, Corrections Officer C. Mathicasd,
Leann K., and Clerk Leanna K. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff’s brief complaint is almost completely devoid of facts. In the statement of his
claim, Plaintiff states “illegal kidnap for about 40 hours.” (Id. at PageID 5). In a document attached
to the complaint, Plaintiff lists the following incomplete and somewhat illegible sentences and
citations: “Lack of Due Process unwarranted seizure and arrest depriving of civil liberties;”
“502.003 shuttleworthvsAL;” “ChitinaMillsVsDC;” “2nd Amend;” “4th Amend;” and “was
detained 36 hour no calls no soap no toothbrush deprived to right to see magistrate immediately.”
(ECF No. 1, PageID 7).
In his request for relief, Plaintiff states that he was “made to register [an] automobile pay
fee occupational fees firearms taken minus due process was told I may be a felon.” (ECF No. 1,
PageID 5). Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). The Court
grants that application.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). The 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 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990). 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 (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. 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.
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. 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 (1986).
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable
to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
III. DISCUSSION
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
essentials.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Although specific facts are not
required to meet the basic minimum notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s complaint must give Defendants fair notice of what Plaintiff’s legal
claims are and the factual grounds on which they rest. Id.
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint, even liberally construed, fails to meet the most basic pleading
standard under Rule 8. The complaint is almost completely devoid of facts, it fails to connect any
alleged occurrence to any specific, cognizable injury, and it lacks a proper request for relief.
Plaintiff fails to identify coherently how each defendant harmed him. Moreover, Plaintiff’s
pleading does not contain a decipherable legal claim within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Plaintiff’s listed citations to certain legal authority is insufficient. Plaintiff’s pleading is
nothing more than a mere “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” for
which dismissal is required. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to state a
claim on which the Court may grant relief.
IV. 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). 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 ISSO ORDERED.
Date: January 31, 2024 ‘adi Mang
CHARLES E.FLEMING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE