The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAMAR W. MONTGOMERY,
Case No. 2:20-cv-842
Plaintiff, Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
v.
JUDY LYNCH, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Docs. 1). Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial
officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C .
§ 1915(a). Furthermore, having performed an initial screen and for the reasons that follow, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docs. 1-2, 1-3).
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the Complaint,
or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). “A claim is frivolous if it lacks ‘an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Flores
v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No. 2:14-CV-84, 2014 WL 358460, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2014) (citing
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). This occurs when “indisputably meritless” legal
theories underlie the complaint, or when a complaint relies on “fantastic or delusional” allegations.
Flores, 2014 WL 358460, at *2 (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327–28).
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe it in Plaintiff’s favor, accept all well-
pleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In sum, although pro se complaints
are to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “basic pleading
essentials” are still required, Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff, a resident of Columbus, purports to sue Judy Lynch, Community Support
Housing, “Twin Valley Behavior,” “Adam H Borad,” City of Columbus,” “Employers of
Columbus,” and “Business Small and Corporations.” (See generally Docs. 1-2, 1-3). Plaintiff
does not bring an intelligible legal claim in his Complaint, which speaks for itself:
Pay me because people who have not been as many class as we are getting billions,
I been put to work because I was thrown on medications that could have killed me
if I was not as strong as I am. People vilate [sic] my provicy [sic] all day eve[r]yday
on social media for money. I want what is owed to me and I want Judge Lynch
removed because she caused harm to me, love[d] ones, and all of Columbus as
African Americans.
(Doc. 1-3 at 4).
In a prior case like this one also filed by Plaintiff, the Court held that:
Plaintiff’s Complaint provides insufficient factual content or context from which
the Court could reasonably infer that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights. Thus,
he has failed to satisfy the basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8(a).
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Moreover, the allegations Plaintiff sets forth in his
Amended Complaint are so nonsensical as to render his Amended Complaint
frivolous. A claim is frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The former occurs when
“indisputably meritless” legal theories underlie the complaint, and the latter when
it relies on “fantastic or delusional” allegations. Id. at 327–28. This Court is not
required to accept the factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such
factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer,
325 F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992)).
Montgomery v. City of Columbus, et al., 2:18-cv-00187, Doc. 2 at 4 (S.D. Ohio).
So too here. Plaintiff’s allegations “constitute the sort of patently insubstantial claims” that
deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C.
Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is premised on incomprehensible allegations, the
Undersigned finds Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief and it is recommended
that this action be dismissed as frivolous. See Flores, 2014 WL 358460, at *3.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Undersigned GRANTS the Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 1), and RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Docs. 1-2, 1-3).
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit
this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review
the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 152–53 (1985).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 27, 2020 /s/Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE