Gwaz v. City of Parma

Full title: PAUL R. GWAZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PARMA, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Date published: May 2, 2014

CASE NO. 1:14 CV 797 (N.D. Ohio May. 2, 2014)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:14 CV 797

05-02-2014

PAUL R. GWAZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PARMA, et al., Defendants.

DONALD C. NUGENT

JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

On April 11, 2014, plaintiff pro se Paul R. Gwaz filed this in forma pauperis action against the City of Parma, the State of Ohio, Robert Jankowski, Timothy G. Dobeck, Judge Kenneth Spanagel, Marty Vittardi, Magistrate Fink, John Doe Officer, Judge Christopher A. Boyko, and "Police Officers." While the complaint is unclear, plaintiff alleges defendants have failed to protect him, and that false charges were filed against him. He asserts "violation of rights, conspiracy, due process, equal protection, mail fraud . . . crimes of official misconduct, libel, malfeasance, and dereliction of fiduciary duty." Complaint, p.7.

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (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 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6^th Cir. 2010).

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 (6

A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks "plausibility in the complaint." Bell At. Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (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, 677-78 (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.

Even construing the complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6^th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting he 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, 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.

__________

DONALD C. NUGENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

th 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).