The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CLINTON ROBERT SCOTT, JR., ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-2246
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
)
vs. )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
)
)
Pro se Plaintiff Clinton Robert Scott, Jr. filed this in forma pauperis action against the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Agency Administration, and the Adult Parole
Authority (“APA”). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff appears to contest a finding that he violated the terms
of his post release control. Id. at PageID 3–5. He asks the Court for his “freedom” and to terminate
his post release control. Id. at PageID 5.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint is brief. (ECF No. 1). He alleges that the Drug Task Force entered
his grandmother’s house in April 2023 “looking for drugs” because of an apparent conversation
between Plaintiff and another individual. Id. at PageID 3. Following a search of the home, the
Task Force discovered a firearm. Id. at PageID 4. Plaintiff states that later that same night, the
Task Force and an APA officer arrested him for possession of the firearm located at his
grandmother’s house. Id. Plaintiff contends the firearm was in the home prior to his arrival there.
Id.
Plaintiff does not assert any legal claims against Defendants. His only request for relief is
for this Court to terminate his post release control. Id. at PageID 5. He states that he wants his
“freedom.” Id.
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).
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 does not assert any legal claims or citations to legal
authority, and none are apparent on the face of the complaint. Additionally, the complaint contains
only conclusory allegations. Plaintiff’s pleading is nothing more than a mere “unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Therefore, Plaintiff fails
to state a claim on which the Court may grant relief.
Moreover, Plaintiff cannot obtain the relief he requested in a civil rights action. He seeks
his “freedom” and termination of post release control, all related to his state criminal sentence.1
This relief may only be obtained in federal court through a habeas corpus petition filed after
1 When Plaintiff filed the instant complaint, he apparently was in state court custody. (ECF No. 1, PageID
3). If correct, he necessarily was not on post release control at that time. Post release control is a period of
supervision under Ohio law which follows release from custody. There is also nothing in the record
indicating he will be placed on post release control at a later time. Therefore, it is unclear to the Court what
post release control Plaintiff seeks to terminate.
Plaintiff has exhausted his state court remedies. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action 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: March 7, 2024 “adi Pin
CHARLES E. FLEMING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE