Opinion
1:23 CV 592
07-10-2023
LESHAWN STRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CHARLES E. FLEMING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff LeShawn Stradford (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant U.S. Bank (“Defendant”). (See ECF No.1, Compl.). The Complaint consists of two brief statements: “U.S. Bank is illegally taking funds from my checking acct and the amount that [it is] taking is $7.00 a month. For the past 2 years” and “I've been corrupt for something else from the federal industry.” (Id.). The Complaint contains no request for relief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). The Court grants that application.
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.
The dismissal standard for Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) articulated in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) governs dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). To state a plausible claim, a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78; Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Sistrunk, 99 F.3d at 197).
DISCUSSION
Although this Court recognizes that Pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21; Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991), the Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf of a Pro se plaintiff. See Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). The complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Edn., 76 F.3d 716, 724 (6th Cir.1996) (citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet even the most liberal reading of the Twombly and Iqbal standard as his pleading fails to identify a viable legal basis within the jurisdiction of this Court or a proper request for relief. Plaintiff merely asserts “430” as the basis for the Court's jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1, Compl. at PageID #4). At best, this is an incomplete citation to a law Plaintiff alleges forms the basis of his claim against Defendant. Plaintiff's failure to identify a particular legal theory in his Complaint places an unfair burden on Defendant to speculate about potential claims that Plaintiff may be raising and any defenses it might assert in response. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.1989), abrogated on other grounds, Moore v. City of Harriman, 272 F.3d 769, 772 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc); Clements v. Brimfield Twp., No. 1:12 CV 1180, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162598, at *16 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2012). Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.