The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY L. MCKINNEY,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-1450
vs.
DENISE PADDOCK, et al., District Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendants.
ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
This civil case is before the Court for a sua sponte review -- pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) -- of the complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff. See doc. 1. Plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on March 20, 2020 (doc. 1), which the Court granted.
See doc. 2. The Court, however, held service of the complaint pending review under § 1915(e)(2).
Id. It is appropriate for the Court to conduct this review sua sponte and prior to issuance of process
“so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such
complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). See also McGore v. Wrigglesworth,
114 F.3d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir. 1997).
Upon review, the Court must dismiss any case it determines is “frivolous or 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)(B). A complaint should be dismissed as
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992);
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. A plaintiff sets forth no arguable factual basis where the allegations
asserted are “fantastic or delusional”; and presents no arguable legal basis when advancing
“indisputably meritless” legal theories, i.e., when the defendant is immune from suit, or when the
plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
327-28; Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000). Courts may also dismiss a complaint
sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
In conducting this initial review under § 1915, the Court accepts pro se Plaintiff’s
allegations as true and construes them liberally in his favor. See Donald v. Marshall, No. 84-3231,
1985 WL 13183, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 5, 1985). However, while pro se pleadings are “to be liberally
construed” and are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), pro se plaintiffs must still satisfy basic
pleading requirements. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). To demonstrate
grounds for relief, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that “[a] pleading that states a claim
for relief must contain[,]” inter alia, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In addition, allegations set forth in a pleading
“must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
Pro se Plaintiff’s complaint consists of 43 handwritten pages, wherein he asserts claims
against six named Defendants in 156 paragraphs. See doc. 1. The Court finds, but does not decide,
that the pleading may thus violate Rule 8, for failing to contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim[s]” and “simple, concise, and direct” allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Nevertheless, noting
that “appropriate liberal construction requires active interpretation in some cases to construe [a pro
se pleading],” Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985), the Court - having fairly and
carefully conducted this required initial review - finds that, in the interest of justice, dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is neither appropriate nor warranted at this early stage of the litigation.
Accordingly, this case should proceed to service of the complaint.
Accordingly, upon receipt of the required forms necessary to effectuate service of process,
the U.S. Marshal is ORDERED to serve Defendants. The Court NOTIFIES pro se Plaintiff of
his duty to complete service of process on all Defendants within 90 days from the date of this
Order, and ADVISES him that his failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case without
prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 30, 2020 /s/Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge