Opinion
Civil Action 2:24-cv-141
01-17-2024
YAISHA HODGES, Plaintiff, v. FREDDIE RUFUS, et al., Defendants.
Michael H. Watson, Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHELSEY M. VASCURA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Yaisha Hodges, an Ohio resident proceeding without the assistance of counsel, has submitted a request to file a civil action in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. All judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
This matter is also before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff's Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to “lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). In doing so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.'” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e) as part of the statute, which provides in pertinent part:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-
* * *
(B) the action or appeal-
(i) is frivolous or malicious; [or]
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted ....28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e) requires sua sponte dismissal of an action upon the Court's determination that the action is frivolous or malicious, or upon determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
To properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must satisfy the basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal and factual demands on the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd., P'Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013).
Although this pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations, a pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). A complaint will not “suffice if it tenders naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (cleaned up). Instead, in order to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (cleaned up). Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility of an inference depends on a host of considerations, including common sense and the strength of competing explanations for the defendant's conduct.” Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504 (citations omitted). Further, the Court holds pro se complaints “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Garrett v. Belmont Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 374 Fed.Appx. 612, 614 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). This lenient treatment, however, has limits; “courts should not have to guess at the nature of the claim asserted.” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 Fed.Appx. 975, 976-77 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)).
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's 38-page Complaint is difficult to decipher. Broadly speaking, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Freddie Rufus, Southeast Healthcare, Inc., and Sun Behavioral Health have all engaged in the fraudulent alteration of Plaintiff's legal, medical, and insurance records.
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Rufus monitored and intercepted all communications to or from Plaintiff's cell phones since 2017, including blocking Plaintiff's phone from calling 911; that Ms. Rufus repeatedly entered Plaintiff's home to poison Plaintiff's food and shave Plaintiff's head while she slept; and that Ms. Rufus had Plaintiff falsely declared deceased in New York shelter records. Plaintiff also alleges that employees of Southeast Healthcare, Inc., tried to make changes to her medical and insurance records without her consent, resulting in Plaintiff being sent an employee's timesheet in the mail. Plaintiff alleges that the time sheet “was sent to me to make it appear that my issue with Southeast concerning my Health Insurance was not serious as it was (because of the hours and dates she charged were for hours/days that are questionable so it was clear to them I would mention timesheet when I received it) to make someone looking in from out believe I'm making nonvalid complaints paranoid delusional complaints (which would facilitate that Health Insurance fraud that had already been committed).” However, the purported timesheet that Plaintiff attaches to her Complaint is in fact a summary of Plaintiff's insurance claims listing the dates of service provided to Plaintiff-not an employee timesheet. (See ECF No. 1, PAGEID #19.) Finally, although Plaintiff names Sujana V. Rayani as a Defendant in the caption of her Complaint, the Complaint contains no allegations relating to Ms. Rayani.
The allegations Plaintiff sets forth in her Complaint are so implausible as to render her Complaint frivolous. A claim is frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The former occurs when “indisputably meritless” legal theories underlie the complaint, and the latter when it relies on “fantastic or delusional” allegations. Id. at 327-28. This Court is not required to accept the factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 Fed.Appx. 427, 429-30 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)). Because Plaintiff's claims are predicated on allegations that rise to the level of being “irrational or wholly incredible” and “fantastic or delusional,” her Complaint fails to meet the facial plausibility standard such that it is legally frivolous. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
III. DISPOSITION
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a District Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).