Molson v. Specht, No. 1:2020cv01080 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2020)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: For reasons set forth in this order, this action is hereby dismissed pursuant to the Court's authority established in Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477. In light of this ruling, the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied as moot. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 8/14/2020. (L,Ja)

Download PDF
Molson v. Specht Doc. 3 Case: 1:20-cv-01080-PAB Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/14/20 1 of 2. PageID #: 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ROWENA MOLSON, Case No. 1: 20 CV 1080 Plaintiff, -vs- JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER AD SPECHT, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Defendants. Pro se Plaintiff Rowena Molson has filed a complaint “for human rights” against defendant AD Specht. (Doc. No. 1.) Her complaint is incomprehensible. It does not set forth cogent factual allegations or legal claims, and it does not identify the defendant or allege facts connecting the defendant to specific conduct. The plaintiff’s one-paragraph complaint alleges in purely conclusory terms: torture leading towards death of self, plaintiff in April 2009 in Ashtabula, Ohio involving threats upon body, beating, verbal abuse, slanderous commentary, with unvalved communication, deprivation in cramped slighted environmental conditions, a blink away from death. (Id. at 1.) Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers, 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:20-cv-01080-PAB Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/14/20 2 of 2. PageID #: 14 v. Edwards, 22 Fed. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). In addition, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to police the boundaries of their jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court “may, at any time, sua sponte 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). Upon review, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s complaint warrants sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn. The complaint is so incomprehensible, unsubstantial, and incoherent that it does not provide a basis to establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over any plausible federal claim in the case. Conclusion Accordingly, this action is hereby dismissed pursuant to the Court’s authority established in Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477. In light of this ruling, the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied as moot. 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. s/Pamela A. Barker PAMELA A. BARKER U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Date: August 14, 2020 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.