# Griffin

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · October 14, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11170501

## Case

- **Full name:** Jewel Griffin v. Police Chief Todd Hansen
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** October 14, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11170501

## Opinion text

11:22 am Oct 14 2025
Clerk U.S. District Court |
Northern District of Ohio
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Cleveland
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JEWEL GRIFFIN, ) CASE NO. 1:25 CV 1953
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
) AND ORDER
POLICE CHIEF TODD HANSEN, )
)
Defendant. )

Pro se plaintiff Jewel Griffin filed this civil rights action against Maple Heights Police
Chief Todd Hansen, (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). The Court grants the application, but for the following reasons,
dismisses the action.
I. Background
Plaintiff's pleading, in its entirety, states that “I am trying for 3 years to get help from
Todd concerning a human trafficking and he has ignored my case and deny me and right to
investigation by blocking the case.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4). The pleading does not include a proper
request for relief.
II. Standard of Review
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.

Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S, 519, 520, 92 S. Ct.
594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). The district 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, 328,
109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990);
Sistrunk v, City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (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. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The
plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but he or she must provide more
than “an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” [gbal, 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. Jd. 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, 106 S. Ct.
2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986).
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most
-2-

favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.
1998).
I. 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 requirements.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The
Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf
of a pro se plaintiff. See Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Ath. Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir.
2008). 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
the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiffs legal claims are and the factual grounds on
which they rest. Id.; see also Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th
Cir. 1988) (all complaints must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all
material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements)
(citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff's complaint, even liberally construed, fails to meet the most basic
pleading standard, as her pleading fails to set forth “a short and plain statement of [any] claim
showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint fails to
include any discernible factual allegations. Additionally, the complaint fails to assert a
cognizable claim within the jurisdiction of this Court based on recognized legal authority, and
-3-

the Court finds there is no cause of action readily identifiable in the complaint. Plaintiff's
inclusion of various federal criminal statutes as a basis for federal jurisdiction does not satisfy
pleading requirements. Finally, the complaint fails to connect any alleged occurrence to any
specific, cognizable injury. The complaint does not satisfy the minimum pleading requirements
of Rule 8 and is therefore dismissed on this basis.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
No. 2). And for the foregoing reasons, 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. fo )
IT IS SO ORDERED. ND ip
/ a Fe
DANAARONPOLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11170501. Public record. Not legal advice.