Opinion

Wheatley

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Filed: Feb 27, 2026
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 39.2%

The opinion

PEARSON, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

AUBRIELLEN WHEATLEY and ) CASE NO. 4:25-CV-01270

TIFFANY WHEATLEY, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

v. )

)

DAVID YOST et al., ) MEMORANDUM OF

) OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants. ) [Resolving ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 12]

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Aubriellen Wheatley’s1 civil

complaint alleging twenty-two causes of action against myriad Defendants, including Ohio

Attorney General David Yost, Akron Children's Hospital Director Scott Beichner, Akron

Children’s Hospital, Clara Westropp Elementary School, Cleveland Public Schools, Principal

Krystle George, Laura's Home Crisis Center, Sarah Sheehan, Dr. Joni Canby, Cuyahoga County

Children and Family Services, Attorney Mark Lavelle, Attorney Rhys Brenden Cartwright-

Jones, Varsity Rentals, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne, and no less than ninety-nine

John/Jane Does. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 at Page ID ##: 1–2. She seeks “unlimited civil,

special, punitive, and exemplary relief” for harms suffered. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at Page ID #:

1 Aubriellen includes her mother, Tiffany Wheatley, as named Plaintiff. See Complaint,

ECF No. 1 at Page ID #: 1. Tiffany Wheatley's claims are dismissed without prejudice because

the complaint was written by Aubriellen, Tiffany's signature is identical to Aubriellen's, and

Tiffany failed to file her own In Forma Pauperis application or requisite jail trust account

statements. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1. Should Tiffany wish to pursue her claims in

federal court, she must file her own complaint with her actual signature and address the filing fee

independently.

9. For the reasons herein, (1) Tiffany Wheatley is dismissed as a party, (2) Aubriellen

Wheatley's application to proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied, and (3) the Complaint is

dismissed in its entirety. Given Plaintiff’s persistent pattern of frivolous and harassing

pleadings, the Court imposes filing restrictions and dismisses all other pending motions as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Aubriellen Wheatley alleges a wide-ranging, multi-year conspiracy by nefarious

state and private actors against her mother and siblings across Northeast Ohio. See Complaint,

ECF No. 1 at Page ID ##: 3–4, ¶¶ 1–10. Inter alia, she claims that: (1) authorities filed false

criminal charges against her mother to strip her property and parental rights; (2) state officials––

including the Ohio Attorney General and the Cuyahoga County Executive––conspired to deny

her mother due process; (3) medical providers deliberately withheld care from her mother and

siblings; and (4) school officials and social service agencies physically abused her siblings and

manufactured a false narrative of her mother’s parental unfitness. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 at

Page ID ##: 4–9, ¶¶ 11–38. She contends this scheme was broadly aimed at keeping the

Wheatley family dependent on social services and engineering her mother's legal incapacitation

in violation of federal statutes and constitutional provisions including the Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, and the First, Fourth, Sixth,

Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See Complaint, ECF No.

1 at Page ID #: 7, ¶ 27.

II. LAW

Imposing a filing restriction is “the proper method for handling the complaints of [a]

prolific [litigator]” at the district court’s discretion. United States v. Petlechkov, 72 F.4th 699,

710 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987)). “When a

court imposes such a restriction, it must . . . justify its rationale sufficiently.” Id. (citing United

States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1116 (6th Cir. 2020)). The district court must identify a “pattern

of repetitive, frivolous, or vexatious filings” justifying the filing restriction. Feathers v. Chevron

U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998)

III. DISCUSSION

The Complaint lacks a coherent narrative and is merely the latest in a pattern of frivolous

filings by Plaintiff. For the past year, she has repeatedly attempted to intervene in closed cases

brought by her mother, was enjoined from filing further documents in multiple civil suits, and

was warned that continued vexatious conduct would result in permanent filing restrictions. See,

e.g., Wheatley v. Boardman Twp. et al., No. 4:22-CV-1439 (N.D. Ohio filed Jun. 17, 2025)

(order). Undeterred, she continues to file new actions for her mother and siblings despite her

non-attorney status.

Plaintiff’s operative pleading says much, but alleges little. She fails to connect any

factual allegations to cognizable legal claims or consequences that are justiciable. Of the causes

of action alleged, only one pertains to Aubriellen herself––that Defendant Varsity Rentals

harassed her and stole some of her belongings during her studies at the University of Akron. See

Complaint, ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 6, ¶ 22. Yet she identifies no viable cause of action upon

which she can seek relief against Defendant Varsity Rentals in federal court. The Court will not

troll the record sua sponte to dredge up a legal fight for Plaintiff. Therefore, her claim against

Defendant Varsity Rentals is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The remaining claims are asserted not by Plaintiff, but on behalf of her mother and

siblings. Standing requires a party to assert their own legal rights and interests; one (who is not

an attorney) cannot find a claim for relief in the legal rights or interests of others. See Warth v.

Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wayne County, 760 F.2d 689, 693 (6th Cir.

1985). Under federal law, a litigant may “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by

counsel[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (thereby imposing a barrier on pro se litigants attempting to appear

on behalf of another person or entity). See Bass v. Leatherwood, 788 F.3d 228, 230 (6th Cir.

2015) (citing Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir. 1997). By definition, pro se

means to appear on one’s own behalf, meaning one litigant cannot appear pro se for another. See

id. As the Court has explained ad nauseum, Plaintiff is not an attorney and cannot bring claims

pro se on behalf of her mother or her siblings. See, e.g., Wheatley, No. 4:22-CV-1439. That

Plaintiff may be collaterally affected by the adjudication of her mother’s rights or her siblings’

allegations does not extend the Court’s Article III powers to her. See Allstate Insurance Co., 760

F.2d at 692. Therefore, the remaining causes of action are dismissed due to Plaintiff’s want of

standing.

Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596,

603 (6th Cir. 1998); Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991); Marshall v.

Beshear, No. 3:10CV-663-R, 2010 WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010). Federal courts

may revoke or deny that privilege when a litigant abuses it by repeatedly filing frivolous,

harassing, or duplicative lawsuits. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. at 184–85 (per curiam);

Maxberry v. S.E.C., 879 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam);

1:13-cv-148, 2014 WL 49188, at *4 -5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2014); Hopson v. Secret Serv., No.

3:12CV-770-H, 2013 WL 1092915, at *1-3 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2013); Marshall v. Beshear,

No. 3:10CV-663-R, 2010 WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010); Haddad v. Michigan

Nat. Bank, No. 1:09-cv-1023, 2010 WL 2384535, at *2-3 (W.D. Mich. June 10, 2010). Plaintiff

and her mother have sought and received both tolerance and pauper status in many previous

lawsuits. See, e.g., Wheatley v. Boardman Local Schools, No. 4:21-CV-01831 (N.D. Ohio filed

Sept. 27, 2021); Wheatley v. Boardman Township, No. 4:22-CV-01439 (N.D. Ohio filed Aug.

11, 2022); Wheatley v. Boardman Board of Education, No. 4:23-CV-00558 (N.D. Ohio filed

Mar. 16, 2023); Wheatley v. Ohio, No. 1:25-CV-01471 (N.D. Ohio filed July 14, 2025);

Wheatley v. D’Apolito, No. 4:24-CV-00987 (N.D. Ohio filed June 10, 2024); Wheatley v.

Mahoning Cnty Clerk of Court, No. 1:25-CV-01843 (N.D. Ohio filed Sept. 4, 2025). That

tolerance is at an end. Her vexatious conduct burdens what is an already strained judiciary, as:

[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of . . . Court, no matter how

repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the [Court’s]

limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that

these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of

justice.

In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). The Court’s efficiency is compromised when forced

to devote limited resources to processing pleadings that are repetitious, frivolous, and

disconnected from reality. See In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991). Too much time has

been devoted by the Court to Plaintiff’s inability to control or comprehend her actions.

IV. CONCLUSION

All claims implicating Tiffany Wheatley and her non-party children are dismissed

without prejudice. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. The remaining claim is dismissed under 25

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See

Complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied. See

Application, ECF No. 2.

After a careful review of Plaintiff’s conduct, see supra Part III.D, the Court finds it

necessary to restrict her ability to continue in this desultory manner. Accordingly, it Orders that:

(1) Aubriellen Wheatley shall file no documents in this Court unless and until she has

paid the requisite filing fee.

(2) Aubriellen Wheatley is enjoined from proceeding In Forma Pauperis in any future

action filed in the Court and must pay the full filing fee at the inception of each new case, if any.

(3) The Clerk of Court shall not accept any new cases submitted by Aubriellen Wheatley

that are not accompanied by the full filing fee.

(4) Because the Court denies her Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis herein,

Aubriellen Wheatley must pay the full filing fee of $ 405.00 before she is permitted file any