Finding a pro se complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous “if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless” or “describes fantastic or delusional scenarios”
How later courts described this case
- Finding a pro se complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous “if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless” or “describes fantastic or delusional scenarios”
- holding that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EMMANUAL DHAKER, ) CASE NO. 1:24-CV-742
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
)
vs. )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
CTS, GCRTA, GCRTA POLICE, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
)
)
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Emmanual Dhaker has filed a civil complaint in this matter against “CTS,
GCRTA, GCRTA Police,” “GCRTA Amalgamated Transit Union,” “A.T.U.,” and the Maple
Heights Police Department. (ECF No. 1, PageID #2). His complaint does not set forth cogent
factual allegations or legal claims. In the form complaint he submitted, he states that the basis for
federal subject-matter jurisdiction in the case is that “[t]he Defendant stole an International Transit
Transient, Transportation Depot and Routes.” (Id. at PageID #3). In the Statement of Claim
section, he states:
They held a bazooka to my head and threatened [to] pull the trigger when I was legally
and lawfully quietly waiting on the Rapid Transit. With the permission of the RTA booth
attendant.
(Id. at PageID #4).
In the relief section, he states to “[b]ring to Justice the Murders described in the (my) brief.”
(Id.). The “brief” is also rambling, unclear, and does not set forth any cogent specific factual
allegations and legal claims. (Id. at PageID #13–20). In the heading of the brief he asserts, among
other things: “Murder;” “Murder with Intent to Steal International Depot Stations and Routes;”
“Intimidation and Attempted Murder to Keep Stolen International Depot Station and Stolen
Routes;” “Thief of Military Installation;” “Identity Theft;” “Theft of Dr. Clifton R. Sweeney,
M.D., Arch’s Founder of Greater Cleveland Regional Authority, Retirement Account;” “Theft of
Greater Cleveland Regional Authority Founder’s Families Lifetime Transit Permit;” “Theft of
Real Estate Grand Theft Auto;” “Theft of Special Forces Military Jeep;” and “Removal of United
States and International Mandated Regulation Bathrooms.” (Id. at PageID #13–15).
In the body of the brief, he states, “[t]hey shot my father, who purchased CTSA then started
GCRTA, they stole my father’s retirement account and they stole his and his family’s lifetime
transit permits to ride free.” (ECF No. 1, PageID #17). He contends, “[t]he thieves included
females, two Joe Bidens (or runes of him).” (Id.). Plaintiff also makes unclear claims regarding
events which allegedly occurred at the Shaker Heights library; he states he became unconscious
and was told that “Joe Biden had poured a quart of lithium down his throat.” (Id. at PageID #18).
Plaintiff also alleges he had an encounter with Regional Transit Authority Police where they
surrounded him and held a gun to his head. (Id. at PageID #19).
With his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2).
That motion is GRANTED. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
Federal district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), to screen
all in forma pauperis complaints filed in federal court, and to dismiss any such complaint that the
court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). To survive a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a pro se complaint must set
forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard articulated
in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
governs dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Although detailed factual allegations are
not required, the “allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
In addition, although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, the generous
construction afforded pro se plaintiffs has limits. Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.
1996). Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required
to conjure allegations on their behalf or “guess at the nature” of their claims. Wells v. Brown, 891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Even liberally construed, the unclear statements and assertions set forth
in Plaintiff’s complaint fail to meet basic pleading requirements or suggest any plausible federal
civil claim or cause of action upon which he may be granted relief against any Defendant. See
Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996) (a court is not required to
accept summary allegations or unwarranted conclusions in determining whether a complaint states
a claim for relief).
Further, a complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The “term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint,
embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. In
other words, dismissal for frivolousness is appropriate where the alleged “claims describ[e]
fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 328. See also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1992) (dismissal is appropriate when the “facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible”); Abner v. SBC (Ameritech), 86 F. App’x 958, 958 (6th Cir. 2004) (Finding a
pro se complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous “if it is based on legal theories that are
indisputably meritless” or “describes fantastic or delusional scenarios”). The Court finds that, to
the extent they can be deciphered, Plaintiffs pleadings fall within the realm of frivolousness.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter
(ECF No. 2) is GRANTED, and his complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further 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: July 15, 2024 ‘adi Hing
CHARLES E.FLEMING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE