From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fowler v. Marous Brothers Construction

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Apr 18, 2007
CASE NO. 1:07 CV 531 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 18, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:07 CV 531.

April 18, 2007


MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER


On February 23, 2007, plaintiff pro se Sherman J. Fowler filed this in forma pauperis action against the following defendants: Marous Brothers Construction, Ross Brittain, Scott Marous, Michael Spino, Crig Dukes, John Torres, Toney Deeney, Shawn French, and Thomas R. Wyatt. The complaint alleges plaintiff is permanently and totally disabled, and indicates he seeks to pursue an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Plaintiff cites case law and specifies the damages he wants to recover. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

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 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. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (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 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. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir. 1985).

Principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. 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 presented to them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments.Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278. To do so would "require . . . [the courts] to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, . . . [and] would . . . 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 liberally construed, the complaint does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting plaintiff might have a valid federal claim. See, Lillard v. Shelby County 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).

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under section 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.


Summaries of

Fowler v. Marous Brothers Construction

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Apr 18, 2007
CASE NO. 1:07 CV 531 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 18, 2007)
Case details for

Fowler v. Marous Brothers Construction

Case Details

Full title:SHERMAN J. FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. MAROUS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 18, 2007

Citations

CASE NO. 1:07 CV 531 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 18, 2007)