Heller v Community Legal Aid, et al, No. 5:2014cv00684 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under Section 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc # 1 , 2 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 8/25/2014. (P,J)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DAWN M. HELLER, PLAINTIFF, vs. COMMUNITY LEGAL AID, et al, DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:14cv684 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff pro se Dawn Heller filed this in forma pauperis action on March 28, 2014 against Community Legal Aid, Access to Justice, and “John Doe Linked DOJ, DOL, DEO Government apportionment partners at the state level, and all associated stake/stock holders.” The complaint consists primarily of legal citations and propositions. While the few allegations plaintiff does set forth are far from clear, she appears to allege she was denied legal aid services. She asserts violation of her civil rights, money laundering and misappropriations, breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, institutional legal malpractice, and civil RICO in the deprivation of honest services. Although 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), the district court is required to dismiss an 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.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Alt. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). 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, 67778, 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 must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements. See Schied v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely 1 An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986). presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would “requir[e] [the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Id. at 1278. Even construed liberally in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting she might have a valid federal claim. See, Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996) (court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief). In light of the foregoing, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). 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. Dated: August 25, 2014 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.