Stradford v. Cuyahoga Cnty.

Full title: LeShawn Stradford, Plaintiff, v. Cuyahoga County, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jan 2, 2024

1:23 CV 2133 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2024)

Opinion

1:23 CV 2133

01-02-2024

LeShawn Stradford, Plaintiff, v. Cuyahoga County, Defendant.

DONALD C. NUGENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONALD C. NUGENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Pro se Plaintiff LeShawn Stradford has filed a civil complaint in this action against Cuyahoga County. (Doc. No. 1.) The complaint does not set forth cogent allegations or legal claims. The complaint, in total, simply states: “I was wrongfully imprisonment Corruption Contain to the Federal Industry.” It seeks no specific relief. Plaintiff has filed no other pleadings with the Court.

Although Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the lenient treatment accorded Pro se plaintiffs has limits. See e.g., Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.1996). Pro se litigants must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 Fed. App'x 579, 580 (6^th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to police the boundaries of their jurisdiction. “[A] district court may, at any time, suasponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.1999).

The Court finds this action warrants sna sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn. The allegations in the complaint are so unclear, unsubstantial, and frivolous that they do not provide a basis to establish this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over any viable federal claim.

Conclusion

Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 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.