“Even if a non-prisoner pays the filing fee and/or is represented by counsel, the complaint must be screened under §1915(e)(2).”
How later courts described this case
- “Even if a non-prisoner pays the filing fee and/or is represented by counsel, the complaint must be screened under §1915(e)(2).”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN PETERSON,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:22-cv-2046
v. Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
ATHENS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), in connection with
his Complaint (Doc. 3). When evaluating a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, the
Court also conducts an initial screen of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). To enable
this review, the Court must be able to discern whether Plaintiff has stated a viable claim. Because
the Court was unable to perform that review, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint
on or before July 14, 2022. (Doc. 8). That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff failed to comply.
Consequently, although Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED,
it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED.
I. Motion For Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
Upon review, Plaintiff has satisfied the standard to proceed without the payment of fees in
this matter, and his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
II. Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss any portion of
the Complaint 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); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997) (“Even if a
non-prisoner pays the filing fee and/or is represented by counsel, the complaint must be screened
under §1915(e)(2).”). While true that 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). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
a complaint to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.”
Previously, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint was too vague and frivolous for
the Court to discern what federal claims he was attempting to bring. (Doc. 8). His allegations
seem to arise, in part, from events that took place at his son’s school. Plaintiff also alleges claims
related to his apartment complex, including issues with his internet service, repairs, and pests. But
his Complaint does not state specific allegations for each Defendant nor make clear what violation
of law he is asserting based on the alleged conduct.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)–(3). All claims must be set forth in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as
far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b), and “[e]ach allegation
must be simple, concise, and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
The Court provided this guidance to Plaintiff and sent a copy of the Pro Se Handbook to
him. (Doc. 8). The Court also gave Plaintiff time to amend his complaint. (Id.). He did not. And,
as it stands, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED, but it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED.
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). The parties are
specifically advised that 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 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 31, 2022 s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE